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, Tuesday, 19th July 2016

All published Official Reports can be found on the website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

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

Volume 133, No. 16

ISSN 1742-2256

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, , IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2016 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Present:

The (Hon. S C Rodan)

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

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

______1808 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Business transacted

Leave of absence granted ...... 1813 Order of the Day ...... 1813 1. Election of the President of Tynwald in accordance with the Constitution Act 1990 – Mr Rodan elected ...... 1813 2. Papers laid before the Court ...... 1819 Bills for signature ...... 1822 Announcement of Royal Assent ...... 1822 3. Questions for Oral Answer...... 1823 1. Building registration system – Independence from executive Government ...... 1823 2. Building registration – Process ...... 1825 3. Serious reputational threats – Method of reporting and recording ...... 1827 4. Rates – Introduction of rebate scheme ...... 1829 5. Dependability Ltd – Termination of contract ...... 1831 6. Dependability Ltd – Validity of assessments ...... 1833 7. Ronaldsway Airport – Replacement radar ...... 1834 8. Deflectograph survey – Publication ...... 1836 9. Department of Infrastructure – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted ...... 1839 10. TV licences – Provision for over-75s ...... 1842 11. Publicly funded salaries – Publication of details ...... 1847 12. Freedom of Information Act – Implementation ...... 1848 13. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Application of principles in the Island’s courts ...... 1850 14. Legal aid – Access to justice for persons in conflict with Government Departments .. 1851 15. Planning enforcement officers – Sanctions re failure to implement enforcement notices ...... 1853 16. Salisbury Street Care Home – DED assistance given to developer ...... 1854 17. Economic growth – Policy options and targets ...... 1855 18. Economic grants – Fraudulent applications ...... 1858 19. QEII High School – STEM block ...... 1861 20. Department of Education and Children – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted ...... 1862 The Court adjourned at 1 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m...... 1864 21. Department of Education and Children – Expenditure during dissolution ...... 1864 58. Translarna drug – Policy for use ...... 1866 22. Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture – Biggest financial waste in past five years ...... 1872 ______1809 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Suspension of Standing Order 3.5(2) to complete Questions for Oral Answer – Motion lost ...... 1874 Questions for Written Answer ...... 1875 23. DEFA budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution ...... 1875 24. Maintenance of Douglas properties – Policy on prosecutions for failure ...... 1875 25. Health treatment for non-Isle of Man residents – Numbers and costs ...... 1876 26. Hip and knee operations etc. – Policy on delay for smokers and overweight patients ...... 1876 27. Medical consultants – Number per salary spine point ...... 1877 28. Ramsey Courthouse – Plans for future use ...... 1878 29. Department of Home Affairs – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted ...... 1878 30. DHA budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution ...... 1879 31. Manx Gas tariff – Reduction or refund ...... 1879 32. Private dental and optician services – Dealing with complaints ...... 1879 33. Childcare provision – Government support ...... 1880 34. Government Department expenditure – Value for money definition ...... 1881 35. Case of the Attorney General – Progress ...... 1881 36. Insurance and Pensions Authority – Frequency of reports to Treasury ...... 1881 37. Financial Supervision Commission – Frequency of reports to Treasury ...... 1882 38. Financial Supervision Authority – Frequency of reports to Treasury ...... 1882 39. DOI budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution ...... 1883 40. Report on Committees and Quasi-Autonomous Entities – Council of Ministers’ recommendations and action plan ...... 1883 41. Failure to undertake due diligence on recruitment – Disciplinary sanctions on senior Government staff ...... 1884 42. Public service staff – Figures for last three years ...... 1884 43. Fraudulent claims for Government assistance – Number during last five years...... 1885 44. Fraudulent claims for Government assistance – Prosecutions and funds recovered .. 1885 45. Visitor numbers – Effect of devaluation of the pound ...... 1886 46. Medical consultants – Full-time working hours ...... 1886 47. Medical consultants – Overtime ...... 1887 48. Waiting times – Per medical speciality in last month ...... 1887 49. Manx Electricity Authority loan – Role and contribution of legal advisers ...... 1889 50. Powerhouse Insurance Limited – Report from Financial Services Authority ...... 1890 51. Public expenditure in coming financial years – Ring-fencing ...... 1890 52. Benefit fraud – Cost to employ two inspectors ...... 1890 53. Conflicts of interest of senior Government staff – Safeguarding public funds ...... 1891 54. Public service management posts – Increase in last three years ...... 1891 55. Vision Nine – Contract signing ...... 1892

______1810 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

56. Department of Economic Development – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted ...... 1892 57. DED budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution ...... 1892 59. Meetings with families – Scheduling...... 1893 60. Recruitment of DHSC staff – Due diligence performed ...... 1894 61. Benefit fraud – Record level for last financial year ...... 1894 62. Peel and St John’s regional sewage works – Whole life costing and costs comparison ...... 1894 63. Proposed £50 million Isle of Man bonds – Public interest ...... 1895 64. Family meetings with DHSC – Making recordings ...... 1895 65. Family meetings with DHSC – Support person...... 1896 66. Department of Health and Social Care – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted ...... 1896 67. Treasury – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted ...... 1897 68. Treasury budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution ...... 1897 69. Credit unions – Progress on amending legislation ...... 1897 70. DHSC budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution ...... 1898 71. Noble’s Hospital consultants – Workload and restrictions on private work ...... 1898 72. Introduction of pension freedoms; current annuity provision – Statement ...... 1899 73. Members’ international travel – Cost from public funds ...... 1899 74. Swearing-in of Lieutenant-Governor – Castle Rushen for future ...... 1903 75. Resident companies – Taxable income 2014-15 ...... 1903 76. Personal pensions – Tax-free cash element ...... 1904 77. UK defined benefit pension schemes – Advice on transfer options ...... 1905 78. New personal pension schemes – Manx self-invested personal pensions ...... 1905 79. Personal Income Tax – Details for 2014-15...... 1905 80. Final Expenditure Revenue Sharing Arrangement (FERSA) – Publication of document ...... 1907 81. Income support 2015-16 – Age of recipients ...... 1908 82. Disposal of publicly owned properties – Safeguards ...... 1908 83. Immigration Tribunals – Legal aid for those suffering domestic abuse ...... 1910 84. Reports provided to judges – Unedited versions for child care and other cases ...... 1911 85. Primary school class sizes – Data ...... 1911 86. New school at Castle Rushen – Progress with plans ...... 1913 87. Gulls – Legislation to control nuisance to residents ...... 1913 88. Foxdale Mines and Deads – Control of erosion; reduction of water contamination ... 1913 89. Biomass boilers – Government installations and breakdowns ...... 1914 90. West Midlands Quality Review Service – Progress report on recommendations to DHSC ...... 1914 91. Fire Regulations for landlords and businesses– Grants and compensation for compliance ...... 1916

______1811 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

92. DOI-held local government housing – Rental income ...... 1917 93. DOI-held local government housing – Maintenance budget ...... 1918 94. Social housing stock units – Number held per housing authority ...... 1918 95. Local authority housing deficiency – Figures for 2013 to 2016 ...... 1919 Order of the Day ...... 1920 4. Housing – Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure ...... 1920 5. Dependability Ltd – Statement by the Treasury Minister ...... 1924 6. Residential accommodation for medical staff – Expenditure approved ...... 1928 7. Education Act 2001 – Additional funding; pre-school credit voucher scheme – Expenditure approved ...... 1932 8. Strategic Sea Services Agreement – Report and recommendations – Debate commenced ...... 1945 The Court adjourned at 5.15 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 5.45 p.m...... 1951 Strategic Sea Services Agreement – Report and recommendations – Debate continued . 1951 Standing Order 1.2(2) suspended to complete Item 8 ...... 1981 Strategic Sea Services Agreement – Debate continued – Amended motion carried ...... 1982 Announcement of Royal Assent ...... 1998 The Court adjourned at 9.14 p.m...... 1998

______1812 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Tynwald

The Court met at 10.30 a.m.

[MR DEPUTY PRESIDENT in the Chair]

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

The Deputy President (Mr Speaker): Moghrey mie, good morning, Hon. Members.

5 Members: Moghrey mie, Mr Deputy President.

The Deputy President: The Chaplain will lead us in prayer.

PRAYERS The Chaplain of the

Leave of absence granted

The Deputy President: Please be seated, Hon. Members. The following leaves of absence have been given: the Lord Bishop for today and tomorrow; 10 and the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Wild, who is unwell – he is, in fact, in hospital and I know we all wish him a speedy recovery.

Order of the Day

1. Election of the President of Tynwald in accordance with the Constitution Act 1990 – Mr Rodan elected

The Deputy President: Hon. Members, the first business of today is the election of the President of Tynwald, following the retirement of Clare Christian OBE. This election is governed by the Constitution Act 1990 and also by Standing Order 5.3. The election will be carried out 15 electronically, but the procedure remains the same and the vote will be secret, as usual. In this election, the Constitution Act provides three categories who are eligible to be elected as President of Tynwald: firstly, a Member of the Keys; secondly, an elected Member of the Council; and, finally, the immediately retired President. Hon. Members, we can be perhaps forgiven on this occasion for discounting the third option. 20 I remind Hon. Members of the procedure. Candidates are nominated, and once a candidate has been nominated a seconder for that nomination will be sought. Speeches may be made in

______1813 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

support by the proposer and seconder before further nominations are taken. When all those whom the Court wishes to nominate and second have been nominated and seconded, the Clerk of Tynwald will read out the list of candidates in the order in which they appear on the 25 electronic ballot paper. Even if there is only one candidate, there will be a ballot, as the successful candidate must have a majority of votes of Members present and voting. If that is clear, Hon. Members, I now call for nominations from the floor. Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

30 Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Lhiass-eaghtyrane. I wish to nominate the Hon. Member for for President – and I would like to make a speech, but I expect you are going to have to leave the Chair.

The Deputy President: Hon. Members – I thank you – before allowing the Hon. Member to 35 continue, I should point out to the Court that, having been nominated, I must ask for an informal indication whether this nomination will be seconded. If it is, then I shall vacate the Chair, as it is not appropriate for me to take part in presiding over the election or playing any other role in the election, either as Deputy President or as Speaker, and I shall take a place on the back benches. Hon. Member, Mr Turner. 40 Mr Turner: Yes, Mr Deputy President, I would be seconding.

The Deputy President: Hon. Members, I have had an indication that the proposition is to be seconded, but before I vacate the Chair, do I have any nominations for an Acting President to 45 take the Chair? I call on Mr Corkish.

Mr Corkish: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I beg to move that, in accordance with the Constitution Act 1990 section 5(4), the Acting 50 Attorney General be appointed Acting President of Tynwald.

The Deputy President: Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare.

Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. 55 I beg to second the motion.

The Deputy President: Thank you, Hon. Members. As I vacate the Chair, the Court will adjourn momentarily to allow the Acting Attorney General to take the position of Acting President.

60 There was a brief adjournment, during which the Acting Attorney General took the Chair as the Acting President.

The Acting President (The Acting Attorney General): Thank you, Hon. Members. Please be seated. Hon. Members, I will call for candidates to be nominated. Once a candidate has been 65 nominated, I will seek a seconder for that nomination before seeking further nominations. When I am satisfied that all those whom the Court wishes to nominate and second have been nominated and seconded, I will ask the Clerk of Tynwald to read out the list of candidates in the order in which they appear on the ballot paper. We have one candidate who has been proposed. I invite the proposer to speak. Mr Gawne, 70 please.

______1814 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Mr Acting President. It has been my privilege to know the current Member for Garff, our current Speaker, the Hon. SHK, for much of the 29 years he has lived on this Island. He was first elected to the 75 House of Keys in a by-election in 1995 and he has been a Member of the House of Keys, therefore, for 20 years. During that time he has been the Chairman of the Planning Committee from 1997 to 1999, Education Minister from 1999 to 2004, and DHSS Minister from 2004 to 2006, and, of course, over the past 10 years he has been our Speaker. Mr Speaker first was inspired to enter local politics in 1991, when he was successfully elected 80 to Laxey Commissioners, at that stage inspired by Operation Clean Sweep, a then DoLGE initiative to clean up village centres. How things seem remarkably similar to how they were in the past! He has been involved in local and national public life through his roles in Laxey and Lonan Heritage Trust, of which he has been chairman for 20 years, and Laxey Fair, chairman for nine 85 years. He started up the Laxey and Lonan Live at Home Scheme in 2010. He is President of the Royal British Legion – that is 20 years of the local branch, and national Isle of Man President for four years – and also a past Pipe Major of our pipe band on the Island. He has extensive parliamentary experience, currently serving on 12 Tynwald Standing Committees and chairing most of them. He is an active and challenging member of the Social 90 Affairs Policy Review Committee and has been since 2011, and has been a member of numerous Select Committees over the years. He is also the Tynwald representative on the British-Irish Parliamentary Association. He has represented the Isle of Man internationally at CPA Speakers’ conferences, he has been Leader of the CPA Election Observer Mission and has also been the representative of Tynwald on 95 the University Court. I believe over all those occasions he has been a very good ambassador for the Island. I know from personal experience that Mr Speaker is proud of our Island’s history and political and cultural heritage. Mr Speaker, in his role as Education Minister, played a fundamental part in the work that has been done to preserve and promote the Manx language, but I also know that 100 he has a very active life in relation to promoting these areas. As I said, he has been Speaker for 10 years and is well equipped to continue in a presiding officer role as President for the next five years. I believe that he has shown himself to be even handed, impartial and fair to all sides of the Court in conducting parliamentary business, and I believe that impartiality and fairness is demonstrated by the fact that my hon. friend, the Hon. 105 Member of Council, Mr Turner, with whom … I think it is fair to say we often disagree on matters … are united in coming forward in our support for the Speaker in this important and difficult role. Hon. Members, Tynwald is entering a difficult and challenging five years. We will need an experienced parliamentarian to keep Tynwald on track as an effective vehicle for the Island’s 110 good governance. Hon. Members, Mr Speaker has proved that he can fulfil this role of presiding officer. I believe that Mr Speaker, a little like that lovely, reassuring and steady tick of the grandfather clock in the traditional Manx farmhouse, has now become very much a part of our Manx parliamentary scene. He provides us with impartial wisdom and guidance in the Keys and I 115 am absolutely confident that he would do the same were we to elect him as President of Tynwald Court. I beg to move.

The Acting President: Mr Turner. 120 Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr Acting President. I have great pleasure in seconding the nomination of the current Mr Speaker, Mr Steve Rodan, for President of this Hon. Court. The presiding officer has a vital role, and I am sure Hon. ______1815 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Members will share my view that Mr Rodan has already demonstrated his commitment to 125 parliamentary democracy in his 10-year stint as Speaker of the Keys. The role comes with great responsibility, as our President is the ambassador for Tynwald and very much our front of house. The role requires diplomacy, flair and a noble character, and I believe Mr Rodan has all those and more in his qualities, as has already been demonstrated when we have had Tynwald visits to other countries and other parliaments; and, indeed, when 130 Tynwald hosts the visits of dignitaries from those other countries, our present Mr Speaker has flown the flag for Tynwald Court and made those people most welcome. Indeed, Mr Rodan is already held in high regard by many from around the world. He is regularly involved in conducting tours of the Precincts here locally and hosting visits by many interested parties who come to the building, as well as giving talks outside. 135 These are just some of the rather extensive list of tasks that the President is required and expected to undertake. Contrary to what some outside the Court may think, this is far from a retirement role. It is one that garners an extremely busy schedule, and I believe Mr Rodan has already shown those qualities. He has represented the Isle of Man internationally at various CPA conferences and I have had the pleasure of accompanying him on such visits. 140 Of course, we have already heard, from the proposer, of Mr Rodan’s past in Government and Government positions as a past Minister, and on Planning and in various other positions as well. I believe that his experience in the Standing Orders in particular, which is a vital part of keeping the proceedings of the Court moving and keeping them orderly, makes him the perfect choice for our new President – our fourth President of Tynwald, to be precise. 145 I hope that Hon. Members will support the nomination of the Hon. Steve Rodan to be elected to serve as our President for the coming years. Thank you, Mr Acting President.

The Acting President: Thank you, Mr Turner. 150 Are there any further nominations? Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Thank you, Mr Acting Attorney General. It is my pleasure to nominate the Hon. Member for Ayre, William Edward Teare, who, I feel, would be an excellent President of Tynwald Court. 155 I have known Mr Teare for many years in both a personal capacity and, more so, since his appointment as a Member of the House of Keys in 2004, and in my opinion he has always been a very fair and competent leader and colleague. This view is echoed amongst many of his current constituents, of which I am one, colleagues and staff. During his time as a Member of the House of Keys, Mr Teare has undertaken many roles 160 within Government, including as a Member of Treasury from 2005 to 2006; Minister for the Department of Health and Social Security from 2006 to 2010; Chairman of the MEA from 2005 to 2007; Chairman of the Manx National Heritage Working Group from 2009 to 2010; Minister for the Department of Education from 2010 to 2011; and latterly, as we all know, Minister for the Treasury since 2011. 165 He has sat on various Committees throughout these years of service to Tynwald, the House of Keys and the Council of Ministers, such as the Select Committee for the Petition of Moorhouse Farm Ltd, the Economic Initiatives Committee, the Select Committee on DoLGE Expenditure, the Select Committee on the Queen’s Pier, the Select Committee on Legal Aid in Family Matters, the Tynwald Setting Enhancements Subcommittee, the Standing Orders 170 Committee, the Select Committee on the Regulation of Surveillance Bill, the Governance Committee, the Social Policy Committee and the Industrial Relations Working Group. I am sure Hon. Members would recognise it has been a heavy workload and a heavy commitment to this Island over many years. Mr Teare has represented the Island on many occasions, particularly when signing off the 175 numerous tax-related agreements with senior ambassadors of various countries. During his time ______1816 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

as Treasury Minister he has attended Commonwealth Finance Ministers’ and World Bank meetings in Tokyo and Washington, UK political party conferences and many more meetings and conferences as a representative of the Isle of Man, where he has proudly flown the flag for the Island. He has developed a comprehensive portfolio of contacts with other politicians, non- 180 governmental organisations and local business sectors, whilst maintaining excellent working relationships with Members of Parliament and, of course, Ministers from the Channel Islands. All of these roles Mr Teare has carried out with dignity, fairness, discretion, professionalism, and compassion where it has been necessary, but most of all integrity, and I believe these attributes would be a great asset to our future President. Not only is he a proud Manxman but 185 everything he has done whilst serving this Island has always been in the best interests of the Island as a whole. Mr Acting President, I beg to move.

The Acting President: Is there a seconder for the nomination of Mr Teare? 190 Mr Henderson: Yes, Mr Acting President.

The Acting President: The Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

195 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu. Mr Acting President, I am very happy to support and second the nomination of for the position of President of Tynwald and do not hesitate in doing so. I can fully endorse and support the comments made by the Chief Minister. I have worked with Mr Teare for many years in two areas in particular: the then Department 200 of Health and Social Security and, more recently, in the Treasury, where he has headed up this section of Government as the Treasury Minister in an exemplary fashion, leading the Island on many occasions in this role. He has achieved this under some of the most exacting circumstances the Government and this Island have ever had to face in recent times. Not only that, but he has undertaken his duties in a stalwart fashion, not shying away from any of the issues he, Treasury 205 or our nation have had to confront, always thinking of the Isle of Man and putting our interests first. Forging through these difficult times, Mr Teare has demonstrated that he is a team player, is a good listener, is fair, is approachable and is not dogmatic. Importantly, he has shown his integrity throughout. As a Tynwald Member and Minister within the , 210 Mr Teare has built up a considerable and highly enviable experience base that surely must rank him as a true senior amongst us. Mr Teare has represented the Island at the highest international level on numerous occasions, meeting many of the world’s international and government leaders. This includes the UK Chancellor, German finance minister and the Secretary of the OECD. He regularly meets 215 officials in the UK government and cabinet ministers. In undertaking this high-level work and that of Treasury Minister here, Mr Teare has built up an important media experience base and is well used to working with the media, both locally and internationally. Notwithstanding all of the aforementioned, Mr Teare has also built up a highly relevant and very considerable experience base as a Tynwald Member through his work as a backbencher, 220 working for his constituents, as an independent Member, Member of Government Departments and Minister. He has also served on many and varied Tynwald Select Committees and Scrutiny Committees, as we have heard, and, importantly, the Standing Orders Committee – Standing Orders being something he is well versed in. Mr Acting President, I cannot think of anyone who is better placed, experienced or qualified 225 to undertake this incredibly important role, more so now than ever, to lead our Tynwald and represent our Island.

______1817 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Acting President: Thank you, Mr Henderson. Are there any further nominations? 230 Hon. Members, as there are no further nominations, I bring nominations to an close and I call on the Clerk of Tynwald to read out the names of the candidates who have been nominated and seconded.

The Clerk: Mr Acting President, the two Members nominated are Mr Steve Rodan and 235 Mr Eddie Teare.

The Acting President: I call on Hon. Members to vote.

A ballot took place and electronic voting resulted as follows:

Vote Results Mr Rodan 16 Mr Teare 12 Number of spoilt papers 2

The Acting President: Thank you, Hon. Members. Mr Rodan has obtained the required majority of votes of Members present and voting, and I 240 declare that the Hon. Mr Rodan has been elected as President of Tynwald to hold office until the first day of the first ordinary sitting of Tynwald in July 2021. I am sure you will all join with me in extending our congratulations to Mr Rodan. (Members: Hear, hear). Hon. Members, that concludes this item of business on our Order Paper. The Court will now suspend for five minutes to allow the President to take his seat.

245 There was a brief adjournment during which Mr Rodan took the Chair as the President.

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

The President: Please be seated, Hon. Members. Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare. 250 Mr Teare: If I could just crave your indulgence for a moment, Mr President, as it is now. Could I congratulate you and take this opportunity of wishing you all the best for the future, sir.

Members: Hear, hear. 255 The President: Thank you. I appreciate your remarks, Hon. Member. Hon. Members, I do thank you for your support and I particularly thank my proposer and seconder for their very generous remarks. I am deeply honoured to have been entrusted with presiding over Tynwald Court for the next five years, a role I accept humbly but very proudly. 260 I have said it before that Tynwald, this ancient Manx institution, is the most precious asset the Isle of Man has. It is a vehicle for our democracy and our nationhood and for the good governance of this Island and its people, and I will do my very best to uphold its best traditions and good name, as I have strived to do as Speaker. Little did I think, Hon. Members, when coming here with my family almost 30 years ago, that 265 one day I would occupy this prestigious chair. I am conscious I follow some very distinguished Manx men and women who have been big political personalities and, not being Manx born myself, which might be obvious to one or two of you (Laughter), perhaps only heightens pride in doing this job.

______1818 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Lastly, it has been a great privilege to represent the people of Garff in Tynwald for the past 270 21 years. They have returned me to the Keys at five successive elections and I sincerely thank them for their consistent support and hope I have adequately repaid their trust in me to give them effective representation in our national parliament over the years. I have greatly enjoyed serving as a constituency MHK and helping people with their concerns. It has been a particular privilege to be Speaker of the House of Keys with the luxury, now at 275 an end, of taking part in the cut and thrust of Tynwald debate, and no doubt I will miss that, but in the role you have given me, I do assure you I will do my best to ensure that the business of this Hon. Court is carried out efficiently and fairly. Hon. Members, we have a heavy Order Paper ahead but, with your co-operation, I am confident we will get through it. In making our contributions, it might be worth remembering 280 the old saying that a speech, to be immortal, need not be eternal. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It also appears that temperatures are set to rise over the next day or two – I do not necessarily mean political temperatures, but the weather – so if you find you are getting hot under the collar, please feel free to remove jackets.

2. Papers laid before the Court

The President: I call on the Clerk to lay papers and, with the consent of the Court, the Item 285 on the Supplementary Order Paper No. 1.

The Clerk: Ta mee cur roish y Whaiyl ny pabyryn enmyssit ayns ayrn daa jeh’n Chlaare Obbyr. Ta mee cur roish y Whaiyl ny pabyryn enmyssit ayns ayrn nane jeh’n Chlaare Obbyr Arbyllagh Earroo. I lay before the Court the papers listed at Item 2 of the Order Paper. 290 I lay before Court the papers listed at Item 1 of the Supplementary Order Paper.

Main Order Paper Public Sector Pensions Act 2011 Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme (Amendment) Scheme 2016 [SD No 2016/0200] Tynwald Membership Pensions Scheme Bulk Transfer Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0201]

European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 European Union (Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions) (Revocation) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0223]

Airports and Civil Aviation Act 1987 Aviation (Cape Town Convention) (No. 2) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0229]

Employment Act 2006 Employment (Maximum Amount of a Week’s Pay) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0219] Employment (Maximum Amount of Awards) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0220]

Fees and Duties Act 1989 Town and Country Planning (Application and Appeal Fees) (No. 2) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0163]

Building Control Act 1991 Building Fees (No. 2) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0164]

______1819 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011 Agriculture and Fisheries Grant Scheme 2016 [SD No 2016/0210]

Fire Precautions Act 1975 Fire Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0218]

Rehabilitation of Offenders 2001 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0221]

Road Transport Act 2001 Road Transport Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0212]

Financial Services Act 2008 Regulated Activities (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0188] Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0186] Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) (Class 1 – Deposit-Taking) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0189] Depositors' Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0187]

Fees and Duties Act 1989 Register of Fines Etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0160] Marriage and Civil Partnership (Venues, Etc.) (Fees) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0206]

Civil Registration Act 1984 Registration of Births and Deaths (Fees) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0203]

Civil Partnership Act 2011 Civil Partnership (Fees) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0204]

Marriage Act 1984 Registration of Marriages (Fees) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0205]

Social Security Act 2000 Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (No. 3) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0194] Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0195] Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 4) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0196]

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0197]

Reports Review of the Functioning of Tynwald [GD No 2016/0047]e High Level Strategic Review of Planning in the Isle of Man [GD No 2016/0048]e Digital Inclusion Strategy 2016-2021 [GD No 2016/0040] National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion [GD No 2016/0044]e ______1820 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Our Landscape, Our Legacy – A Strategy for the landscape and amenity of the Isle of Man to 2050 Sustaining and Maximising our Natural Wealth [GD No 2016/0027] Chief Constable’s Annual Report 2015-2016 [GD No 2016/0028] Liverpool Landing Stage/Strategic Sea Services Agreement [GD No 2016/0045] Proposals Regarding the Future Operation of Douglas Bay Horse Tramway [GD No 2016/0046] Report on the Future of the Manx State Pension [GD No 2016/0036]

Documents subject to no procedure Financial Services Act 2008 Financial Services Disputes (Definition) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0225]

Customs and Excise Management Act 1986 Customs and Excise Management Act 1986 (Enforcing Authority) [SD No 2016/0209]

Immigration Act 1971 Immigration (Designation of travel Bans) (Revocation) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0184] Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules [SD No 2016/0175]e Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules [SD No 2016/0211]e

Merchant Shipping Act 1985 Merchant Shipping (Solas Chapter II-1) (Ships Constructed from 1 July 1986) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0202]

Appointed Day Order Public Services Commission Act 2015 Public Services Commission Act 2015 (Appointed Day No.3) Order 2016 [SD No 2016/0222]

Reports Council of Ministers Response to the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee Second Report 2015-16 – Statutory Procedure for Complaints against Local Authorities [GD No 2016/0041] Council of Ministers Response to the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee Social Care Procurement First Report 2015-16 [GD No 2016/0042] Council of Ministers Response to the Report of the Tynwald Select Committee on Registration of Land [GD No 2016/0050] Council of Ministers Response to the Tynwald Select Committee’s Report on ‘Planning and Building Control (Petition of Redress) 2015-16’ [GD No 2016/0043] Detailed Government Accounts 2015/16 [GD No 2016/0034]e Council of Ministers Report on Committees and Quasi-Autonomous Entities [GD No 2016/0032]e Report of the Police Complaints Commissioner for the year ended 31 March 2016 [GD No 2016/0038] Policing Plan 2016-2017 [GD No 2016/0039] Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme Report for 2015/16 [GD No 2016/0014] Standing Committee of Tynwald on Emoluments First Report 2015-16: Remuneration for Scrutiny Roles [PP No 2016/0111] Standing Committee of Tynwald on Emoluments Second Report 2015-16: The Annual Sum Payable to Tynwald Members [PP No 2016/0112] Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee Third Report for the Session 2015- 2016: Dredging of Peel Harbour and Disposal of Extracted Material [PP No 2016/0106]

______1821 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Report of the Select Committee on the Funding of Nursing and Residential Care 2015-16 [PP No 2016/0120] Report of the Select Committee on the Civil Legal Proceedings 2015-16 [PP No 2016/0117] Financial Provisions and Currency Act 2011 Annual Report to July 2016 [GD No 2016/0037]

Supplementary Order Paper No. 1 Documents subject to no procedure Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 Faculty Jurisdiction Rules (Isle of Man) 2016 [SD No 2016/0231]e

Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009 Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 [SD No 2016/0232]e

Report Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald for the Session 2015-2016: Petitions for Redress [PP No 2016/0094]

(Standing Order 10.9(2) permits the time limit for the circulation of a paper to be varied by the President with the consent of the Court.)

e laid electronically

Bills for signature

The President: Hon. Members, I have to announce that the following Bills have been returned from the Ministry of Justice and are ready for signature: the Highways (Amendment) Bill 2015; the National Health and Care Service Bill 2016. I have to announce that the following Bills have been sent to the Ministry of Justice and are 295 prepared for signature in anticipation of their approval – if they are not signed at this sitting, they will not be able to receive Royal Assent: the Custody (Amendment) Bill 2016, and the Local Government and Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2016. With the consent of the Court, I shall circulate them for signing while we proceed with other business. 300 Members: Agreed.

Announcement of Royal Assent

The President: Hon. Members, I have to announce that Royal Asset has been given by the Privy Council to the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Amendment) Act 2016.

305 Several Members: Hear, hear.

______1822 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

3. Questions for Oral Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

1. Building registration system – Independence from executive Government

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister:

Whether it is his policy to support an open, transparent and accountable system for building registration that is independent from executive Government?

The President: We turn to Item 3 on our Order Paper, Questions for Oral Answer, and in accordance with Standing Orders I do assure the Court that a full two and a half hours will be allocated to the answering of Questions. I call on Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Question 1. 310 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, is it his policy to support an open, transparent and accountable system for building registration that is independent from executive Government? I ask the Ard- shirveishagh.

315 The President: I call on the Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Mr President, the Hon. Member will be aware that the Council of Ministers has commissioned a review of planning. A report by Envision has been received and is on the Order Paper for this sitting of Tynwald with a recommendation that Tynwald receives 320 the report entitled High Level Strategic Review of Planning in the Isle of Man and approves key principles to direct any future reform of the planning system. The suggested key principles include transparency, proportionality and public engagement. Whether a system for registered buildings should be independent from executive Government would, of course, be for consideration during that process. 325 The President: Supplementary question, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Allowing for the issue of the High Level Strategic Review of Planning in the Isle of Man, does he not feel that the Government should get off the fence on this issue, as far as the 330 building registration, allowing for the wilfully inadequate polices that we have had recently, with no conservation officer? What safeguards can people outside this Court have, who are committed to registration of buildings, that there will actually be some commitment as far as this issue is concerned?

335 The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: There is obviously a commitment, Mr President, to ensure that we do protect our built heritage on the Island. It is disappointing, obviously, that we have not had an officer in place for some little time now, but I am sure once the policy paper is discussed and we 340 look at this matter further, particularly with the new administration, this deficiency will be rectified.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran.

______1823 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, how does the Ard-shirveishagh clarify ‘a little time’? It is not a little 345 time. Is the Ard-shirveishagh aware how long there has been without a conservation officer, as far as the Island is concerned? And what assurances can we have, if we do end up with hard times, that we will end up with a let-it-rip policy as far as planning is concerned and the issue of conservation will go out of the window?

350 The President: The Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister: Mr Karran’s rhetoric never changes, Mr President. There are no plans to let planning ‘rip’, as he frequently refers to it. The purpose of the review which has taken place is to ensure that we have a planning system 355 in place for the next administration which is fair to all parties, which recognises the need to protect the built environment, to also recognise the rights of property owners and also, very importantly, to ensure that we take the right steps to ensure that we stimulate even further growth in the economy, which is badly needed at this point.

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

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Does the Chief Minister acknowledge that it would be better to allow applicants for building registration to have their application considered without a filter of Government? 365 Secondly, does the Chief Minister agree that bodies like the Manx National Heritage could provide an independent from executive Government home for issues like building regulation?

The President: The Chief Minister.

370 The Chief Minister: I do not want to comment on this at this point, Mr Speaker … Mr President – I will get used to it in a minute, I am sorry – other than to stress the point again that there is a planning review taken place and this is something which will be considered within it.

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

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Could I just ask the Chief Minister, then: as part of registration, one of the biggest concerns will be for the population of the Isle of Man and people having funding to support that. What 380 would his view be on that?

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Sorry, I do not quite understand the point of his question, Mr President. 385 Can he just expand a little bit?

The President: Please repeat the question.

Mr Quirk: Mr President, it is regarding if we do have registration, obviously it costs quite a bit 390 of money for maintaining large buildings. What would the Chief Minister’s view be on the potential funding? Because, at present, the funding is, I think, at zero.

The President: Chief Minister.

______1824 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

395 The Chief Minister: Yes, the funding, I think, historically, for the protection of registered buildings, has always been very limited. It has never been a substantial sum. Again, I am only repeating myself, Mr President, but if this issue is being considered, it will be considered in the next administration. All these matters will be put into place at that point, including the ability to prioritise funding for the protection of these types of building, alongside 400 many other priorities which exist in Government at that time.

The President: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-Shirveishagh not agree that, with the fact that we are 405 now seeing proposals to get rid of third-party status and the fact that in this and the previous administration there has been wilfully inadequacy as far as any commitment to registered buildings … Does he not agree that, when he says about rhetoric, the reality will be in the next administration that we will end up with very much more liberal planning procedures and there will need to be checks and balances if we are to make sure that registered buildings are not lost 410 for future generations? Get the personalities out of the way and keep to the reality of what is going on in this Island.

The President: Chief Minister.

415 The Chief Minister: And that is exactly what will happen.

2. Building registration – Process

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister:

When an application for the registration of a building is submitted, why it does not receive the same due process that a planning application is given?

The President: Question 2. Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, when an application for the registration of a building is submitted, why does it not receive the same due process that a planning application is given? I ask the Ard- 420 shirveishagh.

The President: Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Mr President, the Department has a duty to determine planning 425 applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. The process for determining applications is set out in the Act and also the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013. There is no requirement on the Department to register a building, although the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 provides for the ability to do so. If the Department does propose to 430 register or deregister a building, there is a process that the Department must follow, and that is set out in the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013. Whilst there is no formal mechanism to submit an application to propose a building, there are processes laid out. However, the two matters are fundamentally different. An application for planning approval enables development that is otherwise restricted and it is appropriate for 435 there to be a due process for Government to follow and a determination made within an ______1825 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

acceptable timeframe. The other is a permissive ability that places increased restriction or protection on a building. It is of course necessary that, when placing further restrictions on a property owner, a legal process be followed, but the determination of a planning application and the consideration of 440 whether to register a building are not the same, and consequently the process is not the same either.

The President: Mr Karran, supplementary.

445 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that the reality is that we have a complete and utter inconsistency on two important aspects as far as planning is concerned – one as far as submitting a planning application and the other on a planning application for registration? Would the Shirveishagh not also agree that, whilst it is in his gift as executive Government, 450 there needs to be some sort of timeframe as far as being able to get buildings registered? If the Ard-shirveishagh is not aware, will he circulate to Hon. Members the timescale that people are having to wait in order to afford protection for buildings in order to make sure that those buildings are protected for future generations and do not end up at the mercies of developers at a date so that it loses the opportunity of the protection of law for the building for 455 future generations?

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Mr President, I cannot give the timeframe that Mr Karran is asking for at 460 this stage. In the absence of a registration officer there is unquestionably a backlog of buildings which are waiting to be reviewed for possible registration. Therefore, at this point, it is difficult to say quite how long it will take to get through the backlog.

The President: Final supplementary, Mr Karran. 465 Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that it is far from a farce that we are on about; it is a serious issue when you have got how many buildings looking for the protection of law, as far as the issue is concerned? Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that this Hon. Member is all for speeding up the 470 planning process and to help to keep unemployment to a minimum in the next administration, but also would like to see some protection as far as registered buildings, which has been wilfully neglected by his administration as far as this issue is concerned?

The President: Chief Minister. 475 The Chief Minister: Mr President, I can only repeat what I have already said. This administration has not wilfully neglected anything, but in the extremely difficult financial environment which we have had to operate in over the last five years we have to prioritise. The Department has decided the point that it could dispense with the registration officer for a 480 period; I am sure that will be reviewed in the new administration. But the vitally important aspect of all of this is to ensure that we have a planning system which is fit for purpose and which is fair to all the parties involved in that process – that is the property owner, the bodies wanting to ensure the registration and protection of the built environment, which we are all very committed to – and also, as I said, Madam President, to ensure that we do nothing which 485 will inhibit the development and growth within the economy, because that is going to be the paramount issue over the next five years. To be able to provide the services that everybody else

______1826 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

wishes to provide for our people, the economy has to grow and we have to give it space to grow within.

490 The President: This will be the last supplementary. Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. I thank the Chief Minister for confirming that, despite the fact that conservation and registration and even the built heritage are not mentioned in the High Level Planning Review 495 principles, it will still be within the scope of the review. Will the Chief Minister advise whether he accepts the point made by the Hon. Member for Onchan that, in actual fact, Government does not have to process an application by somebody for a registered building, and that is unusual and that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency? And will the Chief Minister acknowledge that it is rather embarrassing that for 15 years 500 there have been the same number of properties on the list for review as there are now?

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: I can give the assurance to the Hon. Member that I am sure it will be 505 reviewed.

3. Serious reputational threats – Method of reporting and recording

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Chief Minister:

How serious reputational threats to the Island are reported and recorded?

The President: Question 3. Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. 510 Could I ask the Chief Minister: how are serious reputational threats to the Island reported and recorded?

The President: Chief Minister to reply.

515 The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Mr President, serious international reputational threats to the Isle of Man are identified and reported at an early stage by the International Relations Co- ordination Group of key senior officers. The Group maintains strategic oversight of these issues and evaluates their impact on the Island’s reputation, covering regulatory, economic and social issues. The Group reports to the National Strategy Group (NSG), which in turn reports to the 520 Council of Ministers. The Isle of Man’s Brussels office is also key in monitoring and identifying developments within the European Union which have the potential to impact on the reputation of the Isle of Man. In addition, the Isle of Man Government engages a public relations consultancy to provide public affairs advice on UK issues, which is reported to the National Strategy Group and again the Council of Ministers as appropriate. 525 Serious reputational domestic threats to the Island are identified, reported and recorded by the relevant Department, Office or Statutory Board.

______1827 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The President: Supplementary question, Mrs Beecroft.

530 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Could the Chief Minister confirm how often the National Strategy Group report to the Council of Ministers? Is it on an ad hoc basis, as and when; or do they have to make formal reports on a regular basis?

535 The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: The National Strategy Group as a body meets on a very regular basis, Mr President, but it is usually driven depending on what the issue of the day is that we are having to deal with; and, in particular, over the last year or two it has been focused on the 540 international agenda which has been developing around this. From that, there is a reporting mechanism in place to enable key information to be passed on to the Council of Ministers as and when it is felt appropriate. This is not an automatic onward passage of all the information which is considered at the NSG, but where issues arise which are deemed to have wider importance they are then passed on to the Council of Ministers for consideration. 545 The President: Supplementary, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Yes, please. If the Chief Minister could firstly clarify where the UK falls – whether that comes within the domestic remit or the international remit as far as these risks are 550 concerned; and once they have been reported to the Council of Ministers by the National Strategy Group, are they recorded in the Council of Ministers’ records as having been discussed?

The President: Chief Minister.

555 The Chief Minister: All matters, whether they are UK, domestic or international beyond that, pass through the NSG if they are deemed to be of a particular threat to the Isle of Man, and those items then which are deemed appropriate, as I have outlined, are passed on to the Council of Ministers and, like every other item, they are recorded in the Council of Ministers’ minutes.

560 The President: The Hon. Member, the Deputy Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Singer): Thank you, Mr President. Could I ask the Chief Minister – he mentioned the Brussels office: how, if at all, will its functions change since the Brexit exit? 565 The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: At the moment, the representative we have in Brussels is still in place and is still providing a valuable flow of information from Brussels as to what Brexit 570 developments might occur. The representative we have in Brussels worked very closely with his counterparts from the devolved assemblies in the United Kingdom and indeed with the Channel Islands, who also have an office nearby, and between us all we co-ordinate the gathering of information which might help to inform our reaction to developments appertaining to Brexit. However, it is still very early days in the aftermath of Brexit and we are still, alongside the UK 575 itself, trying to understand what the full implications of this decision are likely to be on our continued presence in Brussels in the future.

The President: Final supplementary, Mrs Beecroft.

______1828 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. 580 Could the Chief Minister then clarify whether it would be the Department referring a matter to the Council of Ministers or the National Strategy Group who should have referred it to the Council of Ministers in respect of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) criticism of our regulator over the Scottish Power issue? I would have thought that that would have fallen under the remit of somebody to report it to the Council of Ministers, where it would have been 585 discussed and recorded.

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Madam President – (Laughter) 590 A Member: It’s only a wig!

The Chief Minister: I will get it right, I promise! Mr President, I apologise once again. It is clearly the end of term. 595 Mr Corkish: Yes, nearly time for a holiday!

The Chief Minister: The APPG outcome, I think, was referred to the regulator for consideration, and that has been responded to by the FSA, I think, and the steps identified.

TREASURY

4. Rates – Introduction of rebate scheme

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Treasury Minister:

What plans he has to establish a rate rebate scheme to protect those with limited incomes from future rate increases?

600 The President: Question 4. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, what plans does he have to establish a rate rebate scheme to protect those on limited incomes from future rate rises? To the Shirveishagh Tashtee.

605 The President: I call on the Treasury Minister. Hon. Member, Mr Teare.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, Mr President. The potential for the introduction of a rebate scheme in relation to people on a low income is something discussed in this Hon. Court as recently as last month, where it was stated that:

Treasury and the Department of Infrastructure have also further considered the introduction of a rate rebate scheme based on existing legislation which takes ‘account of an individual's ability to pay’ which was one of the recommendations accepted by Tynwald and one which has a degree of support in the public consultations. Taking account of the ‘ability to pay’ would undoubtedly involve an element of means testing. There is ongoing work on this matter by a cross-Government project to introduce a single means testing process to avoid duplication of resources and complications for the public. It would seem reasonable that the outcomes of this project should inform the issue in respect of rates rather than implement a stand-alone process for rates, which may conflict with what is decided in the future on a cross-Government basis.

______1829 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

610 In relation to the means testing policy, I also responded that:

Treasury already has responsibility for means-testing policy and operation, specifically in relation to income- related Social Security benefits and civil legal aid. In approving the document entitled, ‘Securing a sustainable future for our Island: An update to the Agenda for Change’ in July 2015, Tynwald endorsed as Government policy that, whilst protecting the vulnerable, the Government will continue to look at means and needs testing in a consistent and equitable way. This project is being taken forward by the Cabinet Office under the political auspices of the Social Policy and Children’s Committee with the ultimate objective of introducing a single means-testing process. Treasury continue to be involved in this project in order that legislative and operational issues in respect of this objective are considered.

As Hon. Members are aware, there already exist a number of income-related Social Security benefits which can help certain people, both in and out of work, with meeting their housing costs, including rates. Thank you, sir. 615 The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh Tashtee for his reply, would he be prepared to put some substance as far as whether there is going to be a timescale as far as any proper rate 620 rebate scheme, and that it will not be just at the level of Social Security? Would he consider that this is going to be one of the major problems as far as inflicting real hardship on many households, allowing for the number of white elephants that will be coming home to roost as far as the bad governance is concerned over the last 10 years as far as capital projects are concerned? 625 Will he give this Court some timescale of when we are going to see something that is going to be realistic, allowing for the fact that we will be looking at £2,000 for an average home in the very near future for our citizens, and many will not be able to afford it?

The President: Mr Teare. 630 The Minister: Thank you, sir. Timescale: it is very difficult for an outgoing administration to commit an incoming administration, so I would respectfully suggest that that is within the remit of the next generation. 635 There are issues, as I mentioned last month. Who pays: would it be the relevant local authority, would it be the local authorities as a group, or indeed central Government? Two of the comments he made: first was that the average rates would be £2,000. I cannot see that, to be quite candid with him. Also, he used the expression ‘white elephants coming home to roost’ – I have to say that I would not want to clear up afterwards, sir! (Laughter) 640 The President: You asked for that, Mr Karran! (Laughter)

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I am sure the next administration is going to have to do a lot of clearing up! 645 Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee … Thanking him for his reply and the courtesy of his reply … The issue as far as the average household bills going up within the next two to three years to £2,000: does he not feel that this has to be funded directly by the taxpayer? Does he not agree that we need some sort of proactive response on the serious implications on householders’ expenditure that this is going to have? And why is nothing put away as far as this in his Budget? 650 The President: Mr Teare.

______1830 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister: The hon. questioner dealt with the issue of who funds it. He suggested it be funded by the taxpayer. Well, unfortunately, if there is extra expenditure taken on board by the 655 taxpayer, that will mean that spending will have to be prioritised – or, to put it in more simple terms, that spending will have to be cut elsewhere, and that really is a very difficult decision. I am sure it will occupy the minds of the next administration, sir.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Thomas. 660 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. I note that the Treasury Minister, very perceptively, says that a key question is who pays – is it ratepayers, is it taxpayers, or is it a group of ratepayers? I also note that the Treasury Minister confirmed Government policy, which is that the Social 665 Affairs Policy Committee is responsible and Treasury will implement central rebating. Can the Treasury Minister agree with me that recommendation 5, which this Hon. Court approved a couple of years ago, is actually that Treasury and the Department of Infrastructure should work with local authorities to introduce a rate rebate scheme to take account of an individual’s ability to pay? Can the Treasury Minister confirm my understanding that there has actually been little 670 contact with local authorities, and that is something that should happen now, to ask their ideas about the key questions?

The President: Mr Teare.

675 The Minister: I am sure that the next administration will take all input on board.

5. Dependability Ltd – Termination of contract

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Treasury Minister:

Whether the contract with Dependability Ltd has been terminated; and if so on what grounds?

The President: Question 5. Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. 680 Could I ask the Treasury Minister whether the contract with Dependability Ltd has been terminated; and if so on what grounds?

The President: The Treasury Minister, Mr Teare.

685 The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, sir. Actions have been taken to end the contract with Dependability Ltd. At this stage, I am advised by the Acting Attorney General that I am unable to comment further on matters relating to the contract.

690 The President: Mrs Beecroft, bearing in mind the answer that has been given, you have the floor.

______1831 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Could I ask the Treasury Minister if the Acting Attorney General gave him any sort of timeframe when he would be able to answer that Question? 695 The Minister: It is very difficult to give a timeframe, because these are real issues which are currently under review.

The President: Mr Thomas. 700 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Would the Treasury Minister agree with me now that it would be churlish not to suspend Treasury’s activity with the Social Security Commissioner and the tribunals in the light of the announcement that has just been made; and would he like to confirm that he will suspend such 705 activity?

The President: Mr Teare.

The Minister: I am unable to give that assurance, sir. 710 The President: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree that the issues surrounding this Question are an example of where we need good parliamentary process in 715 order to make sure that we hold executive Government to account, and show the value of not having everybody singing from the one hymn sheet from this Chamber? Would he recognise that as an issue, going out as Treasury Minister, that there is a need for questions and motions in this place in order to hold executive Government to account?

720 The President: Mr Teare.

The Minister: Mr President, I think I have just read from his party’s manifesto for the forthcoming election, sir.

725 Mr Karran: I am not standing – did you not hear?

The Minister: But if you listen to me, sir, I did say your party’s manifesto, not your manifesto’. I am sure that, as always, there is a place for constructive criticism and coming forward with 730 alternative proposals. Where I have been over the last few years – the criticism has been there, but the alternatives have been sadly lacking.

The President: The Deputy Speaker.

735 The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. Can I say, Hon. Minister, how long was the original Dependability contract and how far through that contract are they at this stage?

The Minister: Off the top of my head, I think it was originally for three years, but I will check 740 on that. We are just over a year out at the moment.

The President: Final supplementary, Mrs Beecroft.

______1832 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. 745 Could the Treasury Minister confirm whether assessments that have already been carried out by Dependability Ltd are actually still in the process of being processed themselves? Are they still being used, or is that being deferred until after whatever is going on is finished?

The President: Mr Teare. 750 The Minister: The new assessments have been stopped, but anything in the system we are working on.

6. Dependability Ltd – Validity of assessments

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Treasury Minister:

How many assessments have been validated by Dependability Ltd; whether they are all being treated by his Department as being valid; how many primary assessments have been carried out by Dependability Ltd; of those, how many included a physical assessment; and whether such primary assessments are treated as valid?

The President: Question 6. Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft.

755 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Again, could I ask the Treasury Minister how many assessments have been validated by Dependability Ltd; whether they are all treated by his Department as being valid; how many primary assessments have been carried out by Dependability Ltd; and, of those, how many included a physical assessment; and whether such primary assessments are treated as valid? 760 The President: The Treasury Minister to reply.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, sir. I can confirm that all of the 1,500 cases which were referred to Dependability Ltd, either for a 765 paper-based assessment or for a face-to-face assessment, included a validation of any recommendation. Treasury is satisfied that all of those validations are valid. I can confirm that 888 face-to-face assessments were undertaken by Dependability Ltd assessors and that all of those included both a physical and a mental health assessment. Treasury is satisfied that all face-to-face assessments were valid except for those undertaken by 770 the unregistered assessor which resulted in a determination that the claimant was capable of work – of which Hon. Members are already aware. As Hon. Members are aware, the operation of the Personal Capability Assessments is currently the subject of inquiry by the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee and therefore it will be inappropriate for me to provide any further commentary at this point in time. 775 Thank you, sir.

The President: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. 780 I am just wanting some more detail on the face-to-face assessments, which do include a physical assessment because it is a medical assessment, and all of these assessments are then

______1833 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

validated by a separate person. Could he confirm that none of these validations were carried out by the unregistered assessor?

785 The Minister: The validations were done to ensure that the due process was followed and that quality assurance levels were met.

The President: Mrs Beecroft.

790 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I think maybe the Treasury Minster did not understand my question. I am asking whether the unregistered assessor actually validated someone else’s assessment or assessments.

The President: Reply, sir. 795 The Minister: This was not a review of the assessment; this was a review of the process.

INFRASTRUCTURE

7. Ronaldsway Airport – Replacement radar

The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

How many radar installations the contractor and provider of the replacement radar at Ronaldsway has provided in the UK?

The President: Question 7. Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen.

800 Mr Cregeen: Thank you … Mr President. I was nearly following the Chief Minister then with ‘Madam’! I wish to ask the Minister for Infrastructure: how many radar installations has the contractor and provider of the replacement radar at Ronaldsway provided in the UK?

805 The President: I call on the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Gawne.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. The radar contractor who is installing the replacement radar system at the Isle of Man Airport has installed seven similar primary surveillance radar systems in the British Isles over the 810 course of the last five to 10 years.

The President: Mr Cregeen, supplementary.

Mrs Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. 815 Does the Minister then regret his statement that the reason it was taking so long was that the contractor did not understand English, as they were Italian; and if they have done seven of these installations, was his comment not incorrect?

The President: Mr Gawne to reply. 820

______1834 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I do not recall making that comment. (Mr Cregeen: You did.) I recall making a similar comment, but I do not think I said it quite in the way that the Hon. Member suggests. And, of course, I am talking about the primary surveillance radar system, not the secondary one, and 825 there are issues in terms of communication in terms of the contractor understanding what is required of them, and that is clear. I do not regret saying that, because it is the truth, and I believe that that is what I am supposed to do when I come to Tynwald Committees and indeed sittings of Tynwald Court.

830 The President: Mr Karran, supplementary.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh just clarify why we have not got this issue sorted out, as it has implications, as jets cannot land in fog, as far as the Island is concerned – that is what we are being told – which must have an effect as far as the finance industry is concerned for this 835 Island. What assurances can we have that lessons have been learnt and we are going to find a situation where, as Minister … that we are not going to end up with things being covered up and people should be held to account as far as the large amount of public money that is involved?

840 The President: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I hope that the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee will provide all the information that the Hon. Member seeking. The Department and I give full information to that 845 Committee, explaining all the issues, and that report will cover that in some detail. I could spend a long time going over that detail now; I think it would probably be best to wait until the report is produced.

The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Turner. 850 Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. The Question, of course, asks how many radar installations the contractor and provider of the replacement radar at Ronaldsway has provided in the UK. The Minister, in his Answer, said seven. Could he clarify then, does that include both parts of the radar system, the primary and 855 the secondary, because his Answer was not entirely clear. Do the seven that he mentioned include a secondary radar system as well?

The President: Minister to reply.

860 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I am not sure that the Answer was not entirely clear. I spoke about seven similar primary surveillance radar systems, but for absolute clarity that does not include the secondary one.

Mr Cretney: I wonder why? 865 The President: Supplementary, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. Does the Minister still stand by his comment that the radar will be signed off by the end of 870 July?

The President: Minister to reply. ______1835 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister: Again, the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that – there must be an election coming up! No, what I actually said – 875 (Interjection and laughter)

Mr Singer: What did he say, then?

8. Deflectograph survey – Publication

The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

If he will publish the deflectograph survey results and the priority list of future works?

The President: Question 8. Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen. 880 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I ask the Minister for Infrastructure: will he publish the deflectograph survey results and the priority list of future works?

The President: I call on the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Gawne. 885 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. The deflectograph survey was undertaken as part of the Department’s focus on strategic maintenance of the Isle of Man’s key assets. The results provide an indication of the residual life of the foundation of the road. 890 The deflectograph survey generated a huge amount of data. Published in its raw form, without additional expert analysis, this data would be difficult, if not impossible, to interpret. Therefore, if the Hon. Member wishes, he is more than welcome to meet the Department’s engineers to discuss any specific aspects of the survey results. The Department carries out regular assessments of our highway network to ensure that 895 resources are properly targeted. A wide range of survey information, including residual life, ride quality, skid resistance and visual appearance, is analysed in conjunction with other key factors such as traffic volumes, economic and cultural importance, accident statistics, condition of the utilities as determined by the statutory authorities, planned development and budgetary considerations. This data is used to prioritise strategic maintenance projects and to achieve the 900 best value for money when maintaining and developing the road network. A synopsis of the 2016-17 Strategic Highway Maintenance Projects is available to view on the Department’s website, and I have in my hand a copy if the Hon. Member does not have access to the website. This includes information about individual projects, costs and projected start dates as part of our commitment to public engagement and openness. 905 The website also features a draft forward programme of works covering the period 2017-28. I have that in my hand now as well; that is a single sheet of paper. The schemes on that sheet of paper are not worked up in the same level of detail as the current year’s set of projects.

The President: Mr Cregeen. 910 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. Will the Minister not agree that this information is vitally important to ensure that the roads of the Isle of Man, which are a vital infrastructure to the people getting around … that this information should actually help prioritise and ensure that we do not get systems like we have

______1836 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

915 unfortunately had in the past, when you have got the Sloc that was done and the main highways have actually deteriorated, so having that priority into the future should be a great advantage.

The President: Mr Gawne.

920 The Minister: As I say, it is an election year, isn’t it. The Sloc was done because it complied with the set policies of the Department. The issues particularly of note were the dilapidation of the actual infrastructure of the road itself, which was believed to have one or two useful years’ life left in certain places, skid resistance and various other issues, including ride quality. That is why it was done. 925 I believe that, absolutely, as the Hon. Member says, it is important to have the deflectograph surveys done. They are done approximately every five years. That information provides the highways engineers with a huge amount of information on which they can make highly experienced decisions using their expertise and vast knowledge of how to fix highways. I do not think it is appropriate for politicians to get involved in those decisions (A Member: 930 Hear, hear.) and I keep out of those decisions. Sadly, it would appear that not all Hon. Members do.

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

935 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Could I ask the Minister on the deflectograph survey that was done previously, five years ago, as the Minister has mentioned, and the one that was done recently: was the prom included in that, and what priority was it given by your Department 10 years ago?

940 The President: Reply, sir.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. My Department did not exist 10 years ago, in its current form anyway, and I certainly was not a Member of that Department 10 years ago so I have no idea what the actual answer to the 945 question or the detailed answer … I am more than happy to find that out for you, Hon. Member, but I can pretty much guarantee that the prom would have been assessed at that stage and I am pretty confident, because I know when I was first in the Department of Infrastructure that it was high on our list at that stage – that was six, seven years ago. I was not around 10 years ago, but I am guessing it was on the list of important works to do. 950 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Does the Minister agree with me that in actual fact the Department has made great progress 955 putting up information about the proposed work from 2017-28, so any member of the public can go and see, very clearly now, where the road that they care about is prioritised: Circular Road 2017, down to Belmont Hill reconstruction 2018, and so on? Would the Infrastructure Minister agree with me as well (Interjection by Mr Quirk) that it is very helpful that the Department has now circulated new guidance for Manx roads, which will 960 actually inform these projects? Also, would the Minister agree with me that the new app for reporting potholes and the like is actually a very helpful innovation –

A Member: It’s not a new app! 965 A Member: It’s not new. ______1837 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Thomas: – that it is working very well, that will be very helpful for people and is now being looked at for rolling out further across Government?

970 The President: If we could try and keep the supplementary questions short (A Member: Hear, hear.) we might get through the rest of the Paper. Mr Gawne.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 975 I bet you can’t guess what the answer to that question is! (Laughter) Yes, of course I agree.

A Member: He works for you!

The Minister: Actually, when I was first made Infrastructure Minister, six or seven years ago, 980 and I first went in to speak to the then Director of Highways I asked him what was our work programme for the year – bearing in mind I was appointed in April – and he said, ‘Oh Minister, it’s a bit early to think of having a work programme for the year ahead. We usually get that completed towards the end of the summer.’ And that was for the capital projects for the whole of that year. So, actually, being able not only to have the full work programme published on the 985 website in advance of the financial year starting, but also to have a lengthy period out to 2028 on that website I think is a great step forward. I believe that the work began when I was Infrastructure Minister the first time around; I understand that the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Cretney, when he took over, progressed with that work as well. And it is important, because I think there is so much misunderstanding out 990 across the Island in relation to roads. Most people believe that they are experts and believe that they know what needs doing and what does not. I think the more we can do to explain to people what actually is happening, what the policies are and what the information is that the officers are working on, the less likely we will see some of the silly stories that we have seen in Isle of Man Newspapers recently. 995 The President: Final supplementary, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. Will the Minister agree to share this information with some of the private road contractors, 1000 so they can assist in formulating progress into the future?

The President: Minister.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1005 We already do contract out some of the work. Obviously, again, the Department was heavily criticised for contracting out work. We are criticised if we do not contract out the work. We were then criticised when we did, because the contractor we contracted the work out to did not do the job properly. However, we are endeavouring to improve the relationship with our contractors. I am 1010 confident that in the future we will be doing a lot more work with private contractors, which I think is going to be in the best interests of both the Department and indeed that element of our construction sector.

Mr Cregeen: Mr President, can I just clarify my point is will he share the deflectograph 1015 information with private contractors?

The President: Minister.

______1838 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1020 I am not entirely sure to what purpose, because it requires quite high-level understanding of what deflectograph information is (Interjection) and I am not entirely sure why we would share that with private contractors when those private contractors only do the work if we commission them to do it. So we would need to understand what the issues are. If it helps in some way then obviously I would be happy enough to do that, but I am not quite sure what that would assist 1025 with.

9. Department of Infrastructure – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What in the past five years was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department?

The President: We must move on. Question 9. Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

1030 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, what in the past five years was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department? To the Minister for Infrastructure.

Mr Turner: How long have you got?

1035 The President: I call on the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Gawne.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. So many things to choose from! It would be a serious matter if any Department were to set out deliberately to waste 1040 taxpayers’ money, (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) and I am sure the Hon. Member does not seek to imply, by asking the Question, that this has happened. Furthermore, it is only possible to give a subjective answer to such a question, since it involves a value judgement, and my judgement may well be different from that of others. Also, hindsight enables us, using information which was not available at the time, to review past decisions and consider whether they may have 1045 turned out to be poor value. That all said, and in the interest of being completely open and honest with this Court, in my judgement the single largest waste of taxpayers’ money is the ongoing support for the Shaw’s Brow Car Park in Douglas. The support is essentially a guarantee given by the former Department of Local Government and the Environment to Douglas Borough Council to make 1050 good any revenue losses arising from the operation of the car park. The contract was poorly drafted. It has no break clauses, nor an end date. (A Member: Hear, hear.) To date this agreement has cost the taxpayer well over £1 million and is ongoing. Hon. Members will know of my view that parking is a matter that should be left to the local authorities. Douglas Borough Council successfully negotiated a very good support contract from 1055 DoLGE. I am not sure that I would – in fact I am pretty sure I would not – have given support for something which I think should be done by and for ratepayers. I would hope that I would have prepared a much fairer contract. My Department has negotiated a new approach with Douglas Borough Council in regard to Shaw’s Brow, and as a result of this the annual cost is falling dramatically and is expected to 1060 cease entirely in due course. The only alternative course open to the Department would have been to cease to meet its obligations under the contract, and in doing so face expensive legal action. ______1839 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

This example, of course, is one of many often unreported pieces of work the Department undertakes on a regular basis to improve efficiency and deliver better value for the Manx 1065 people. I can assure the Hon. Member that my Department has been working hard over the past five years to achieve better value for the public’s money. We have made significant progress in making savings and improving efficiency, and in playing our part in addressing the fiscal and financial challenges facing the Island.

1070 The President: Mr Karran, supplementary.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would like to thank the Shirveishagh. At least he is not playing Disney World or trying to be some sort of person who is infallible. Would the Minister consider the issues outside this Court, that Hon. Members realise that 1075 the general public have a list of their own, but would he consider the likes of the expenditure for the £473,000 on resurfacing the road at the Sloc, when the response to the Committee from yourself was that the money had to be spent? I appreciate his honesty as far as that is concerned. Would he consider that raising the issue with CoMin about trying to bring back the policy that 1080 I had with Minister Gelling, Treasury Minister, some time ago to try and stop this mechanism of the mad March spends as far as issues are concerned? And would he consider that the redevelopment of the prom, where it is alleged there has been a figure of something like £1 million spent on rejected schemes … that we need to find a way forward to try and get more effective ways so that we do not lose that sort of money, 1085 allowing for the fact, again, through parliamentary process, Questions were put down in order that the media could do so?

The President: Reply, sir.

1090 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. First of all, just because you read it in the newspapers does not mean to say that that is true. (A Member: Hear, hear.) The money spent on the Promenade is not money lost. The vast majority of that money is money well spent (Interjection) and will be used to progress one or other version of the scheme. 1095 At least half of the money is basic stuff like structural survey work and all that basic preparation work, so it is not money completely lost in that regard. As for the Sloc, there has been a very selective quote – and to be fair to Isle of Man Newspapers, it was first broadcast, I think, on Manx Radio. The selective quote had me saying ‘so we had to spend the money on something’, but that came at the end of a very extensive 1100 discussion that I had with the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee, in which I lamented the fact that Government Departments were encouraged to spend all of their capital programme, or as much of their capital programme as possible, and this led to certain behaviours which perhaps were not in the best interests of the Manx taxpayer. I lamented that fact, and then I summarised by saying, ‘So, because this was the general policy encouraged by 1105 Treasury, we had to spend the money on something.’ Now, that is quite different to the way it has been reported in the newspapers and on the radio. Sadly, we do not have a press complaints commission on the Island, so there is not an awful lot I can do about that.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Quirk 1110 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Could I ask the Minister regarding, as Members, or previous Members, recall, the mad March spend, what is the mechanism in your Department to prevent that happening? You have a

______1840 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

financial officer, you have yourself as the Minster, you have Members. What does happen in 1115 your Department when you are making that decision?

The President: Mr Gawne.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1120 First of all, there is no such thing as mad March spends anymore. What there is is throughout the year a significant brake put on everything, and perhaps in March, when it is clear that we are not going to overspend, some of the budget will be spent on essential projects. So that is how things tend to work. In relation to projects such as the Sloc, for example, what happens is that partway through 1125 the year it is obvious that parts of the capital programme are not going to be spent, and at that point usually Treasury and the Department try to come forward with different schemes that can be delivered within that financial period. The sorts of schemes that can be delivered in a relatively swift period of time are schemes that do not need significant engineering and design work undertaken – for example, a road that 1130 is in a poor condition but does not have any infrastructure underneath it, is in the countryside and does not require any air traffic control programmes putting in place. So, a road such as the Sloc, which was on our list. It was not particularly at the top of the list, but it was certainly on the list needing doing in the next two to five years. That was an obvious scheme to do because it needed to be done at some point in the near future and it did not require any significant work. 1135 Similar schemes have been done all over the Island, but I am assuming that because the Sloc is close to or in my constituency that is why this one has been picked up.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

1140 Mr Karran: Shirveishagh, would you consider what I asked for, when we get repeatedly criticised with the media about not putting up alternatives? Allowing for the fact that you are forced to spend money or lose it, will you investigate and ask CoMin to look into the issues that we develop the policy, when Minister Gelling was Treasury Minister, about the mad March spends, allowing for the economics? If you could look into that I would be very happy – if he 1145 could give that assurance in order that we have that situation. It is all right these 40-per-centers who are part of the party system criticising you because you are not one of your friends; what I want is actual proper strategy. So will you consider that issue and report to CoMin, and maybe we can have a response on that issue?

1150 The President: Reply, sir.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Again, the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee … if you read the Hansard to see the full quote you will see that I have said in the evidence that I gave that we are 1155 working on that with Treasury. We are looking at a different approach to the capital spend because, quite frankly, it is a bit silly to end up having to rush forward schemes towards the end of the financial year, so we are already onto that particular issue. Mad March spends, as you would have known them, Hon. Member, in your early days in this Court, really do not happen anymore across Government. What does happen is, as I said before, 1160 the brakes are put on expenditure for most of the year, and then towards the end of the year, when it becomes obvious that there are not going to be particular environmental issues, weather issues that come along, then a little bit more expenditure takes place towards the end of the year. But it is certainly not the mad March spend that used to happen in the days of milk and honey – sadly, long since passed. 1165 ______1841 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, make this the last supplementary, please.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Would the Minister agree with me that, in actual fact, despite use of Shaw’s Brow Car Park in 1170 Douglas as an example of a bad contract, the working relationship between the Department and Douglas is actually very positive at the minute, and Douglas Council is chairing an Access and Car Park Working Group that is considering the future use of the car parks, active travel and all of that sort of thing as part of a wider Department/Douglas Council partnership going forward? (Interjection by Mr Quirk) 1175 The President: Minister.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Yes, I thank the Hon. Member for reminding me of the excellent work that I believe he and I 1180 have been doing in working with – (Interjections and laughter)

Mr Malarkey: Now who’s electioneering? (Laughter)

The Minister: Okay, yes, what is it – kettle, pot, black and all. 1185 But, actually, it is important. I am not criticising Douglas Borough Council for signing up to a contract that they really could not have refused. It is more the case that Government should never have signed up to that in the first place. We do have a very productive and very positive working relationship with Douglas Borough Council at the moment and I do hope, whether it is me or somebody else coming in after the 1190 next election, that good and productive working relationship continues.

10. TV licences – Provision for over-75s

The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

How many meetings have taken place with the BBC regarding provision of a free TV licence for the over-75s; and whether the Cabinet Office obtained an agreement that the BBC will provide Isle of Man residents over 75 with a free licence the same as the UK?

The President: Question 10, the Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen.

1195 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I ask the Minister for Policy and Reform: how many meetings have taken place with the BBC regarding provision of a free TV licence for the over 75s, and whether the Cabinet Office obtained an agreement that the BBC will provide Isle of Man residents over 75 with a TV licence the same as in UK? 1200 Mr Quirk: Equality.

The President: Minister for Policy and Reform, Mr Shimmin, to reply.

______1842 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

1205 The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr President. I can advise that the Cabinet Office is in discussion with the BBC to ensure equality of treatment for Isle of Man licence fee payers aged 75 and over from 2020, when the BBC has full responsibility for the policy and for funding any TV licence concession. This was clearly set out in a letter from the Isle of Man Government to the Director General of the BBC in October 2015. 1210 During a subsequent telephone conference call with the BBC in November 2015, they advised that the funding of free TV licences was bound up with their discussions with the UK Government over the terms and renewal of the BBC’s Royal Charter. It was anticipated that the position would be clearer in April 2016, and a meeting could then follow between the Isle of Man Government and the BBC. However, consideration of the Royal Charter has been delayed. 1215 Consequently, the UK Government’s proposals for the Charter have still not been published. Earlier this month the BBC advised that it should be in a better position to meet to discuss the matter in August, and confirmation of this and a date are awaited from the BBC. It is fair to say, Mr President, that we have found the delay frustrating. However, on such a sensitive issue I should like to explain a few more details. It should be clear that a free BBC TV 1220 licence for those less well-off pensioners who are in receipt of Income Support will continue. This includes all pensioners, not just those aged 75 or over. However, as Members will be aware, the February 2015 Budget on the Isle of Man, approved by the Hon. Court, agreed that the Government would no longer fund free BBC TV licences for all households in the Island which included a person aged 75 or older, regardless of their means. 1225 The difference between the UK then followed in the July 2015 budget where the UK government announced that it would continue to provide free TV licences to everyone in the UK aged 75 or older for the life of the current Parliament, that is until May 2020, as part of the Conservative Party manifesto pledge. It is this matter, Mr President, which is a political one rather than our discussions with the BBC, which has caused the change between licence fee 1230 payment on the Isle of Man and in the UK to differ.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. 1235 I would like to thank the Minister for clarifying a number of those points, but would the Minister not agree that, as the Select Committee found, the BBC are actually underfunding the Isle of Man shy of nearly £1 million every year? (A Member: Hear, hear.) Does he not agree that we should be doing more to get value for what the Isle of Man residents pay in TV licences (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) back on the Isle of Man, and this should be part of those negotiations to 1240 ensure we get what we deserve out of the BBC – that additional £1 million?

The President: Reply, sir.

The Minister: The simple answer would be yes, Mr President. I think everybody is aware of 1245 the issues involved. We are frustrated at not being able to discuss with the BBC, but we will be raising this, along with the concessions for over-75s, to try and make sure that the Isle of Man does try and fight for fair treatment for our people compared to the amount that we contribute.

The President: The Hon. Member of Council, Mr Turner. 1250 Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. Can the Minister explain then, how in terms of the Act of the UK Parliament that extends these regulations to the Isle of Man, which mean that Manx residents are in effect treated as UK when it comes to the TV licence, why bits of the legislation appear to be being enforced, i.e. 1255 everybody has to pay a TV licence, yet other bits, with regard to the over-75s, suddenly that perk that is given to their counterparts in the UK is no longer available to residents of the Isle of Man? ______1843 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Surely, if the UK are running our wireless telegraphy and have decided that over-75s will get free TV licences, then it should apply to over-75s on the Isle of Man as well. (Several Members: Hear, Hear.) 1260 Would he further undertake to actually play hardball with them and refuse point blank to pay for the over-75s and say, ‘You have forced this legislation on the Isle of Man, and no, we are not going to pay for it.’ (Interjection)

The President: Minister to reply. 1265 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. The discrepancy arises because the UK government can impose obligations on the BBC, which our Government are not in the position to do. What they have imposed is that they have made a political decision within the Conservative Party to maintain the funding of over-75s until the year 1270 2018. From that year onwards, a third of the moneys will be contributed by the BBC, the following year two-thirds, until in 2020 when the full amount will be absorbed by the BBC. Therefore, at the moment, until such time as the BBC takes over full control of that in 2020, or part control from 2018, it is a political decision for the Isle of Man Government, which is in discrepancy with the UK government’s policy. Therefore, it is a policy issue on the Isle of Man 1275 until such time as the BBC actually takes on that responsibility.

The President: Hon. Member for Council, Mr Cretney.

Mr Cretney: Given the controversial nature of this proposal and that it was included in the 1280 2015 Budget, would the Hon. Member, the Minister, agree with me that very often things are included in Budgets but are then subject to separate votes? Has this matter been subject to a separate vote?

The President: Minister to reply. 1285 The Minister: I think the Hon. former Minister is fully aware that that is not the situation in this case. The reality is that the Isle of Man Government made a decision, approved by Tynwald Court back in 2015, which is now being found to impact upon the people of our Island who are 1290 expected to pay the full cost for the TV licence, which applies to members of my family and many Members’ of this Court, and many people within our community. It is a political decision which the next administration can look at, as they did in the United Kingdom, and make a pledge to change, but at the moment I am bound … I have no powers to change what has gone forward through the Tynwald Budget process. 1295 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Turner.

Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. Will the Minister undertake to find out, then, how … He talks about the government in the UK 1300 setting certain parameters. Well, clearly, the setting of the actual fee itself is outside the gift of this Hon. Court, so if they can set parameters as to how much our residents are going to pay for the TV licence, surely then, if they are giving them free to over-75s, that should include licence payers in the Isle of Man. They are covering licence payers in the Isle of Man over the rules, the costs and everything else, so why not over this? This is what I am failing to understand: why 1305 certain rules are applied here without any ability of Tynwald or the Manx Government to interfere with that, and yet other rules do not apply here. I think we need a clear understanding as to whether the licence fee in itself is particularly enforceable in the Isle of Man, because it seems to be a bit of a shambles. ______1844 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The President: Minister to reply. 1310 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I do recognise that Hon. Members are concerned from a number of angles on this, whether they are representing their constituents on this, or indeed, as the Hon. Member of Council, they have a long-held view of frustration about our relationship in this matter. 1315 I would go back to 2011, Select Committees, the number of times we have gone through all of this. The issue back in 2010, when the UK froze the TV licence fees, has had an impact on the BBC. We have had a Select Committee report back in 2011. It frustrates many of us. It is a matter that … some parts of this will be in discussion with the BBC, other parts are in discussion with the UK government, and people recognise that we are attempting to get the dialogue going for 1320 those but it is now August before we will be able to have the first conversations with the BBC. Our dialogue with the United Kingdom government will attempt to continue, but they have been somewhat difficult to track down in recent months.

A Member: Refuse to pay. 1325 The President: Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I understand that this area has suddenly been hoisted onto the Minister for Policy and 1330 Reform, but does he not agree that now is the time that we should actually, as Government, be leading from the front on this and refusing on our behalf to pay the United Kingdom for the people on benefit across the nursing homes, and the Government should withhold its payment to the BBC for those licences it pays for, as part of that bargaining situation? We should lead with that and say, ‘If you are not giving us the benefits that there are across the UK, then we are 1335 going to take action ourselves.’ It was quite clear in the United Kingdom. They took £500 million out of the BBC licence fee, which Isle of Man residents paid into, (Several Members: Hear, hear.) for superfast broadband which we do not benefit from. We also support S4C, which is no benefit, so surely that is now the point for the next administration to actually go banging on their desks and saying enough is enough, and now let’s get our fair share. 1340 Mr Turner: Hear, hear.

The President: Minister.

1345 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I can assure the Hon. Member that he, along with Members of Council will be here post- September and therefore I will take it up with the Council of Ministers. It is outwith my responsibility to be able to give any guarantees today, but I will ensure that this is on an ever- increasing list of items that should be reconciled. We will attempt to get as much information as 1350 we can for the next administration to cover all of these areas so that decisions can be taken.

The President: Mr Cretney.

Mr Cretney: Thank you. 1355 Would the Minister recognise that persons from the Isle of Man who have served alongside others in Her Majesty’s forces are offended by this matter and are even more offended when they understand that matters are put forward by press release from Treasury in relation to this, when really we could have stood still whilst such negotiations were ongoing?

______1845 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

1360 A Member: Hear, hear.

The President: Minister.

The Minister: I am fully aware of meetings being held this week with former members or 1365 current members of Her Majesty’s forces. I am fully aware of the people on the Isle of Man who feel offended and outraged by this. At times, it suits for us to have a level of autonomy and independence; at other times, we wish to be treated in the same way. There are variations and responsibilities on a quasi-independent country such as the Isle of Man, where we have obligations. 1370 I think the real issue about the decision from Treasury is one which has caught everybody by surprise. This was a decision taken back in February 2015. It was ratified, I think, around the time the United Kingdom changed their position, but it has not now been picked up prior to the recent publication of the information when it actually affects people. I think maybe all of us have taken our eye off the ball a little bit in the publicity of this fact, and when we look at means 1375 testing we have attempted to protect the most vulnerable, but obviously this has caused offence. We are aware of that. It is in the gift of the next administration to revisit that, but I do not have the power to do so today.

The President: A final supplementary, Mr Karran. 1380 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not agree that the fact is that the bottom line is that if people voted for it in the Budget of 2015 it seems a bit hypocritical now for them to be complaining about the issue if they voted for the Budget? Would the Shirveishagh also not agree that the fact is that we are not part of the United 1385 Kingdom, but what we should be doing is…? Will he make representation to his last CoMin to make sure that they actually start preparing for us to take over the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, which was recently… it was 1949, I think, the Wireless and Telegraphy Act … that we need to actually take on board and take control as far as this issue is concerned, and let’s stop the double standards in this Court as far as this issue. If people voted for the Budget in 2015 they 1390 agreed to this at that point, but we should be looking for a legislative initiative in order that we take control of our airwaves as far as this nation is concerned.

The President: Minister.

1395 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I do not believe that everybody who voted in the 2015 Budget was agreeing to this policy. (Mr Cretney: Hear, hear.) However, it would have been predicated on the saving to the Isle of Man of a figure of £600,000 a year at a time when we know budgets are tight. The other difficulty then is that the idea of any variation and change to that figure would have to be paid 1400 for elsewhere across Government. But I think the really dangerous problem would be when we talk of the smaller Government … the idea of the Hon. Member for Onchan to take over the Wireless and Telegraphy Act would be something which would be a massive undertaking and significant increase in staff for a benefit which would have to be identified. So I, at this stage, would not recommend that. I too legitimately accept it is an option, but I think it is one where 1405 we would need to quantify the implications.

______1846 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

11. Publicly funded salaries – Publication of details

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

Why publicly funded salaries are not published identifying the recipients and the actual amounts paid?

The President: Question 11. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, why are publicly funded salaries not published, identifying the 1410 recipients and the actual amounts paid? I so ask the Minister for Policy and Reform.

The President: Minister to reply. Mr Shimmin.

The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr President. 1415 It is increasingly common now in the United Kingdom for public authorities to publish information on the salaries of officials in the public sector. This seems to be as a result of the general trend towards transparency, to which the Freedom of Information Act has contributed, as well as the direction of government policy and changes in statutory requirements. This is generally for senior civil servants, such as those earning above £50,000, and can include full 1420 details including names, job titles and so on. I am advised that following a recent ruling in the United Kingdom, those earning over £150,000 are unable to withhold consent to have their names made public. Although the Isle of Man Government does not currently publish individual salary details of senior public servants, we do publish many more figures than used to be available by bands and 1425 categories within our publications. It does seem likely that the public will expect, and therefore consideration is now being given to increase the amount of this information in the future.

The President: Supplementary.

1430 Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply, allowing for the fact that this is not something revolutionary – it is something that we used to see; the publicly funded salaries were published in the year Examiner book many years ago, so this is not revolutionary – can the Shirveishagh give us some idea of when we are going to actually see a timescale on this issue, and whether he would be considering doing the same with contracts such as the Media 1435 Development Fund at the £360,000-odd a year that they get for running this fund, which has lost considerable amounts of money? Will he be thinking of broadening it out to other contracts as well as the wages and salaries of directly employed staff?

The President: Minister. 1440 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I too have seen the former Examiner book, where it did individualise names and details in a very different simple world than we live in today, one prior to social media and other ways of exposing issues, that can become quite unpleasant. But, as I said in my original Answer, we are 1445 moving in this direction. We are increasingly making more and more Government information available through the portal gov.im. We have now got large amounts of information previously not disclosed, which are a means for the public to have access to and to hold us to account. One of the issues that I would like and will commit to is consultation with the unions. The idea of individuals being named in a forum which then can be openly communicated elsewhere 1450 is one which I would like to take up with the unions in the first instance, and I think we are

______1847 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

moving everywhere within Government towards greater information and accountability to the public. I am sworn to that principle. We are doing it already in the Cabinet Office as per the next Question, when we go on to Freedom of Information. I think it is a trend which is unstoppable, but we do need to have some checks and balances to protect individuals or a competitive 1455 tendering process.

The President: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that it might actually work in the advantage for 1460 a lot of people, namely the Members of this Hon. Court, the number of people who actually are quite surprised at how much Members get and how they are not overpaid as far as their responsibilities? So this should help as far as that issue is concerned, as far as the general public is concerned. Does he not agree that this is the way forward in order to make sure that people know where 1465 their money is being spent as taxpayers, as far as public salaries are concerned, because it is causing upset by many of the workers as far as the disparity of what is at the top and what is at the bottom as far as earnings are concerned within Government?

The President: I think you have answered that question, Mr Shimmin. 1470 The Minister: I agree, Mr President, with your comment – I have already answered that.

12. Freedom of Information Act – Implementation

The Hon. Member for Peel (Mr Harmer) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

If he will make a statement regarding the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act?

The President: Question 12. Hon. Member, Mr Harmer.

1475 Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform: will he make a statement regarding the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act?

The President: Minister for Policy and Reform. 1480 The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr President. As part of Government’s ongoing commitment to openness and transparency, the pilot phase of the Freedom of Information Act went live for the Cabinet Office and the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture on 1st February this year, and since then 40 Freedom of 1485 Information requests have been submitted. It has been encouraging to see Island residents exercising rights given to them by the Act and these two Departments responding effectively to the new additional statutory duty. The Council of Ministers remains committed to rolling out the Act across remaining Government Departments, the Information Commissioner and Tynwald and its Branches from 1490 1st January next year. The phased introduction of the Act has identified areas for refinement prior to this further roll-out. The pilot has also been an opportunity to understand the impact on Government of responding to these requests. There has been a significant variety in the requests submitted. ______1848 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Some are straightforward requests for information, whilst others have been lengthy, complex 1495 and related to sensitive matters. Correspondingly, the amount of time spent in answering each request has varied greatly. Whilst the Act permits for the burden on public authorities to be managed by way of vexatious provisions, the Departments have so far been unwilling to do so. Mr President, we have endeavoured to make sure balance is struck in the Freedom of Information regime introduced. However, learning from both the pilot phase and experiences of 1500 other jurisdictions, there is a need to provide some level of protection against the burden caused by the time taken to respond to some Freedom of Information requests. Consequently, over the coming weeks we will hold a public consultation on proposals to introduce a cost limit for requests, above which public authorities can refuse to answer them. I would state, Mr President, this is not a decision, this is a consultation. 1505 The President: Supplementary, Mr Harmer.

Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr President. Would the Minister agree with me that transparency is absolutely vital for trust in the 1510 Government? And would he confirm what sort of time and costs there are for these enquiries and also what are the local authorities and boards … when they are due to come in, and also are we effectively on track for those?

The President: Mr Shimmin. 1515 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. My information says that, on average, FOI requests take 15 hours at an estimated cost of £375. The most expensive request to date is estimated to have cost £1,500, and it continues, and it has already taken over 60 hours to date to provide the information. 1520 I would advise that we are on track for 1st January for Government Departments, the Information Commissioner and Tynwald; 1st June for all Statutory Boards and Offices and publicly owned companies; and then 1st January 2018 for local authorities and private companies to the extent that they perform functions or exercise powers conferred on a public authority under an enactment. That does tie in with the previous question from the Hon. 1525 Member, Mr Karran, where we are looking at information held on behalf of the public by the authorities.

The President: Mr Quirk, supplementary.

1530 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. With reference to the Minister, can I just ask regarding … He said 40 requests – were they 40 requests actually completed or 40 … or how many …? Could I ask the question, then: how many are still active out of the 40?

1535 The President: Minister.

The Minister: Mr President, 28 went to the Cabinet Office, 12 to DEFA. Most have been done; some are still ongoing. There is a portal that you can go onto. All the information that is provided… I have not looked at the latest figures, so I am sure some are still in hand, but there 1540 are timescales and any variation or failure to reach this timescales has to be explained to the applicant.

______1849 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

HM ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL

13. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Application of principles in the Island’s courts

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask HM Acting Attorney General:

Whether the Isle of Man is bound by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; and to what extent the Island’s courts are bound to apply its principles?

The President: Question 13. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

1545 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, is the Isle of Man bound by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to what extent are the Island’s courts bound to apply its principles? I ask the Acting Attorney General.

The President: I call on the Acting Attorney General to reply. 1550 The Acting Attorney General: Thank you, Mr President. With effect from 7th September 1994 the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was extended by the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man. There are two optional protocols to the Convention: the first on the involvement of children in armed conflicts; and the second on the 1555 sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Under the Convention, states’ parties are required to undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognised in the Convention. As part of the monitoring procedure under the Convention, the Isle of Man Government submits regular reports, as a component of the overall report by the United 1560 Kingdom and its devolved administrations to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child set up under the Convention, on the measures adopted in the Isle of Man which give effect to the rights recognised in the Convention and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights. The latest such report was prepared by the Cabinet Office in 2013. Given that the principles set out in the Convention are implemented in Manx domestic legislation, it is fair to say that the 1565 Island’s courts are familiar with the principles set out in the Convention, and when provided for in legislation the courts are bound to apply it. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Supplementary question. 1570 Mr Karran: Thanking the Acting Attorney General for his reply, allowing for the fact that one recently had to deal with one of these cases to do with children, the fact was that their aunt and uncle were wealthy enough to be able to access the court. What legal rights have been put onto the courts system as far as getting legal aid for children under these cases, where they are 1575 affected directly as far as the rights of the child as far as the United Nations Convention? Is there a responsibility for legal aid representation, so that they can actually access that?

The President: I call on the Acting Attorney General to reply.

1580 The Acting Attorney General: Mr President, I am not actually aware of any particular case where someone has not been able to access legal aid. When you look at the type of legislation which has been incorporated into our own domestic legislation as a result of this Convention – I mention a few examples: the Children and Young Persons Act and, of course, the rights which that provides – I can think of many situations which might come before the civil courts where ______1850 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

1585 clearly legal aid would be available. There is also provision under amending legislation with regard to special guardianship orders which come before the court, and again I am aware that legal aid is granted in those circumstances. If there is any particular circumstance where a person or alternatively if Members consider legal aid ought to be extended to cover situations, they should make representations to the 1590 Legal Aid Certifying Officer.

Mr Karran: Thanking the Acting Attorney General for his reply, but allowing for the fact that it was actually one of the Manx Bar who raised this issue with me … Obviously, if we are to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1595 then surely the legal aid issue needs to be funded properly as these particular cases are cases where they are very vulnerable and they have not generally got the fortunateness of the previous case that I dealt with, where they had a strong family bond to protect their safety long term. Will he look into the issue as far as legal aid being accessible for people under this particular 1600 Convention?

The President: Acting Attorney General.

The Acting Attorney General: Mr President, I am afraid that that is beyond my remit. As I 1605 have already said, matters of that nature are for the Legal Aid Certifying Officer, not for me.

14. Legal aid – Access to justice for persons in conflict with Government Departments

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask HM Acting Attorney General:

What provisions are in place to ensure that members of the public have equality of arms and access to justice when in conflict with Government Departments; and whether the present limits on access to legal aid are appropriate where individuals have to fight cases against Government?

The President: Question 14. Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: What provisions are in place to ensure that members of the public have equality 1610 of arms and access to justice when in conflict with Government Departments; and are the present limits on access to legal aid appropriate where individuals have to fight cases against Government? I ask the Acting Attorney General.

The President: Acting Attorney General to reply, please. 1615 The Acting Attorney General: Thank you, Mr President. The provision of legal aid for proceedings in the Island’s courts and tribunals is made by the Legal Aid Act 1986. Section 2 of that Act provides that, except where varied by regulations, the civil proceedings in connection with which legal aid may be given are those set out in part 1, 1620 schedule 1 of the Act, namely proceedings in the High Court and the Privy Council, and certain proceedings in the summary courts - for example, child care proceedings – and also to specify to tribunals. For legal aid to be granted, the applicant must pass a legal merits test and a financial merits test which are determined by the Legal Aid Certifying Officer. There are two aspects to the legal ______1851 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

1625 merits test: firstly, that there are reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being party to the proceedings; and secondly, it must be reasonable that the public purse funds the proceedings, even if they are unlikely to be cost effective – that is, the benefit of the outcome is not considered in the context of a decision approving legal representation. As regards the financial merits test, applicants in receipt of certain Social Security benefits 1630 from the Isle of Man Treasury, including such as Income Support or Jobseeker’s Allowance, automatically qualify for free legal aid. The eligibility of other applicants depends on the amount of their net resources following a calculation which takes account of their income, savings, capital and certain costs and expenses, which are reflected in prescribed amounts calculated for each applicant. The amount of the net resources determines whether the applicant is eligible to 1635 receive legal aid and whether it be subject to a contribution or whether the applicant is ineligible. A grant of legal aid means the advocates representing the applicant will be paid for the work done at the hourly rates currently prescribed by the Treasury, but the Chief Registrar has the power and may apply a higher hourly rate where he is satisfied that it is required in the 1640 exceptional circumstances of any particular case. I am satisfied that the Island has an appropriate and fair legal aid regime to enable the public to access justice. Of course it could be better, and paying more by way of the standard hourly rate for advocates might, for example, encourage more advocates to make themselves available to accept legal aid cases. 1645 It is the responsibility of the Legal Aid Committee to evaluate the fairness, equity and social implications of legal aid. As to whether the financial eligibility criteria are set at the appropriate levels to enable a person of modest means to be able to engage in litigation is not for me to say; it is a matter for the lay committed to consider, taking account of the relevant financial information. 1650 Thank you Mr President.

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Would the Acting Attorney General take on board the fact that on his watch the 1655 access to justice is going backwards? Would the Attorney General also agree that when you are talking about 12 hours, when you have Government Departments refusing to answer letters, so that the situation is that their 12 hours are gobbled up in the fact of having to rewrite letters at the refusal of Government to actually address, the fact of the issue that you have got to pay now £500 to get an advocate 1660 from off the Isle of Man up front in order that … the fact that they are taking the Government on and virtually every member of the Manx Bar is conflicted in some way, does he feel that this issue needs to be raised, as Her Majesty’s Acting Attorney General, if you believe in justice and access to justice as far as the ordinary people of this Island are concerned?

1665 The President: Reply, sir.

The Acting Attorney General: Mr President, very difficult to reply to that. It is clearly subjective as to whether or not (Mr Karran: Reality.) access to justice is going backwards, as the Hon. Member has stated. 1670 There are clearly some people who have difficulties with reference to obtaining legal aid in certain matters, and as I have said, whether the financial means are set at the right level for assessing people and their eligibility to legal aid is a matter for the Legal Aid Committee. I can only urge the Hon. Member and those members of the public who may be so aggrieved to make their representations to the right people. 1675 I have no role with reference to setting either the financial test or the merits test with reference to legal aid, and quite properly, because of course on behalf of Government I am often ______1852 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

involved in litigation and I ought not to try and influence the availability of legal assistance to those who might be making claims against Government. I certainly do believe that there ought to be fair access to justice and encourage that, and whenever I get the opportunity, 1680 Mr President and the hon. questioner, I will certainly be making that point.

The President: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Acting Attorney General recognise that we understand it is 1685 independent as far as the legal aid situation is concerned, but when we find officers from Departments obfuscating and making sure that the limited resources of other people are gobbled up before they get anywhere near a court, will he do a review as far as the access to justice is concerned in order to try and get some equality of arms between the people they are supposed to serve and the state that is supposed to look after their interests and not just their 1690 own?

The President: Acting Attorney General.

The Acting Attorney General: Mr President, I do not believe it is for me to embark upon 1695 carrying out that sort of review, unless I am directed by Hon. Members to do so, and I do not actually know where it would take me because, as I have said, the responsibility for trying to ensure equality of arms by having an effective Legal Aid system is a matter for the Legal Aid Committee, and there is nothing more that I can do. Government has – as far as I am concerned, and I have expressed the view – introduced what 1700 is a fair system. It is certainly much better than in the United Kingdom, and if that needs to be tweaked or altered to assist people in having their access then representations ought to be made to the Legal Aid Committee, and I have to keep coming back to that point.

15. Planning enforcement officers – Sanctions re failure to implement enforcement notices

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask HM Acting Attorney General:

What sanctions might apply in the case of a planning enforcement officer who unreasonably fails to implement an enforcement notice in line with advice received from the Attorney General’s Chambers?

The President: Question 15. Mr Karran. 1705 Mr Karran: What sanctions might be applied in the case of planning enforcement officers who unreasonably fail to implement the enforcement notice in line with advice received from the Attorney General’s Chambers? I ask the Acting Attorney General.

1710 The President: The Acting Attorney General to reply.

The Acting Attorney General: Thank you, Mr President. I would only become involved if a planning enforcement officer were alleged to have committed a criminal offence relating to a failure to perform duties as a planning enforcement 1715 officer. If a planning enforcement officer, for other reasons, failed to take steps to implement an enforcement notice, his failure would not be a matter for me or for my Chambers to consider. It ______1853 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

is not my role or that of the legal officers in my Chambers to advise any Department that they must actually take enforcement proceedings. That decision is a matter for each Department, and 1720 in the case of planning enforcement matters it is a decision to be taken by the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture. Chambers may, of course, have advised as to the adequacy of the evidence to support the issue and/or implementation of an enforcement notice, but whether that advice is accepted or actioned upon is not for me or for Chambers. As Her Majesty’s Acting Attorney General, I have no regulatory function in respect of planning matters, 1725 and the separation of my functions as legal adviser and when wearing my Crown hat, acting as prosecutor, must be kept separate from the regulation process. Whether or not an officer in a particular Department acts properly on receipt of our legal advice is a matter for the Department to consider. If the actions of the officer concerned were deemed to be inappropriate, disciplinary proceedings could be taken in the usual way. 1730 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, does the Acting Attorney General believe that the Department’s 1735 planning enforcement policy is both credible and lawful, given that there are approximately 250 reported breaches of planning under investigation and yet very few, if any, have been prosecuted? What checks, if any, are carried out to ensure that the planning enforcement officers implement the planning enforcement notices in line with the advice given by your Chambers? 1740 The President: Acting Attorney General.

The Acting Attorney General: Mr President, I believe I have answered that by making it clear that I have no regulatory function. Clearly, both I and the legal officers in my Chambers will 1745 advise Departments with reference to the evidence that they may have or present to us with reference to enforcement proceedings but, as I have said, whether or not they follow that advice is not a matter for me.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

16. Salisbury Street Care Home – DED assistance given to developer

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

Whether the developer of Salisbury Street Care Home had assistance from his Department?

1750 The President: Question 16. Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Could I ask the Minister for Economic Development whether the developer of Salisbury Street Care Home had assistance from his Department? 1755 The President: I call on the Minister for Economic Development. Hon. Member, Mr Skelly.

______1854 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. The developer of Salisbury Care Home, Salisbury Care Ltd, has had no assistance, financial or 1760 otherwise, from the Department of Economic Development in relation to the Salisbury Care Home.

The President: Mrs Beecroft, supplementary.

1765 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you. Could the Minister clarify in what circumstances a project such as this would be able to ask for assistance from his Department?

The President: Mr Skelly. 1770 The Minister: Gura mie eu. Predicting what may be required there, I would suspect that we could provide vocational training support and potentially work permit assistance in this area, as I am sure we would all recognise that there are problems with regard to skill shortage in this field. Those are two areas 1775 that I would consider are possibilities that they may apply for support.

17. Economic growth – Policy options and targets

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

What policy options are considered to accelerate economic growth; and what the specific target of each of these options is?

The President: Question 17. The Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

1780 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to leave to ask the Minister for Economic Development: what policy options are considered to accelerate economic growth, and what is the specific target of each of these options?

1785 The President: I call on the Minister to reply. Mr Skelly, please.

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I thank the Hon. Member for his Question. Arguably this is the most important question facing Tynwald, Government and our community as we seek to fund public services whilst 1790 balancing Government’s budget. This Government believes that the best way to raise additional tax receipts is to grow our economy, generate new jobs and so grow our economically active population. Our efforts to diversify and grow the economy have been successful, as shown by the growth in national income throughout this administration and the growth in the Island’s workforce over the last 1795 year. Indeed, unemployment has halved from its peak two years ago, while job vacancies have grown to levels not seen since the peak before the banking crisis. As a result, many sectors are reporting that they are struggling to find skilled workers as they need to grow. If businesses

______1855 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

cannot secure the workers they require, then they will take these jobs elsewhere and we will 1800 lose the economic benefit and associated tax receipts. In this situation, we must carefully consider the right policies to support economic growth. The Department has been working to consider options to accelerate growth and, as a result, the Department intends to undertake a consultation shortly on a range of proposals that we feel can support the necessary growth. This work will help the incoming administration to take prompt 1805 and effective action. Options include the following. We are looking at ways to encourage Manx graduates and other skilled Isle of Man workers to return to the Island to take up the growing range of jobs available here. We are also looking at how we can help employers to attract the skilled workers they need, including further marketing of the Island as a place to live and work as financial incentives. 1810 The Department is also reviewing the Financial Assistance Scheme guidelines in order to accelerate organic growth of local businesses. We are also examining ways of rewarding local people for getting businesses to locate here in the same way as the Connect Island Initiative has done successfully in the Republic of Ireland. We are considering ways to remove barriers to employers bringing staff to the Island, which 1815 we have already done by simplifying and removing work permit requirements. The Department is also looking at further ways to boost earnings, particularly for workers at below median earnings, by considering the merits of reforms similar to those made by the UK national living wage. The consultation will give respondents the opportunity to suggest their own ideas or policies 1820 which could help accelerate growth. Gura mie eu.

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Thomas.

1825 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. I welcome all that and the announcement that I saw indicated in the summary of Council of Ministers proceedings about those five new initiatives, and I fully support the Minister and the Department taking them forward. Can the Minister confirm that he agrees with me that the most important thing is making it 1830 attractive to come to the Island, i.e. making the earnings sufficient to actually justify coming to the Island if you are not here now, or staying on the Island if you are here, or if you are going off to temporarily to study abroad? Can the Minister advise further is it really true that 85% of graduates who have left the Island do not actually return on graduation? If so, would he agree with me that that is very sad? 1835 The President: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I am glad to hear that the Hon. Member supports this move. This is a consultation that will 1840 happen through the summer and hopefully will put in place the information and evidence ready for the next administration, because accelerating economic growth is very necessary. He highlights the point of the Isle of Man being an attractive place to live, work, visit and invest, and it is exactly our centre plank with regard to trying to promote the Isle of Man and how we market the Isle of Man. We do need to recognise that we are in a very, very competitive 1845 marketplace when it comes to skilled workers, which is exactly his second point with regard to our own people who graduate off Island and skilled workers off Island who do not return to the Island. So we do need to look at ways of how we can incentivise them to come back to the Isle of Man, which is why that was at the top of the list of those options that we will be considering.

1850 The President: Supplementary, Mr Harmer. ______1856 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr President. I just wanted to clarify: is it true that 85% of graduates do not return to the Island? Has consideration been made to sponsorship schemes and getting schools involved and companies? Because obviously this is a key area for economic growth. 1855 The President: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu. Yes, I recognise both Hon. Members’ point there about the percentage of graduates. I cannot 1860 confirm that figure, but I am sure the Minister for Education may be able to provide that. What we do know is there is a large percentage who obviously do not return to the Island, and we must do more, I believe, to try and get them to return to the Island. As highlighted, our economy is more diverse than it has ever been and therefore the opportunities are much wider than they have been too. We believe the opportunities are there, 1865 and what we need to consider is what incentives we need to entice them back to the Island to work here and benefit our economy.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Thomas.

1870 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Would the Minister advise when the first investment from the Enterprise Development Fund is going to be made, if it has not already been made; and whether there is any review of the activities of that policy in the light of any new evidence that has come to light in the last nine months or so? 1875 The President: Mr Skelly.

The Minister: Gura mie eu. We would hope that the first deal would be concluded during the summer months, as we 1880 obviously go into our election year, and that was the whole purpose of getting Tynwald approval at the time we did, so that we could go through the process and they could get the necessary accreditations for them to operate in this field. The pipeline is very healthy and strong – over 80 leads, of which we believe there are some very good, positive ones, and we would hope that there will be some announcements of those being concluded before the summer is out. 1885 In terms of identified obstacles, I will say that Spark have highlighted what we already know, which has already been stated in this question – skill shortage, and that will be a major factor. So, the consultation that we do during the summer I think will be of vital importance to the next administration.

1890 The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Can I just ask the Minister, some months ago now … well, a month ago, another jurisdiction has exited the EU … What is your Department, or what is Government doing generally to support 1895 those businesses who may have wanted to put their foot in the water but want some more advice to see what the Isle of Man’s stance is going to be for the future? Are you running somebody who is giving them that advice, and clearly putting that out that it is Mr X or Mrs Y we need to contact for that advice?

1900 The President: Mr Skelly.

______1857 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. The Hon. Member raises a very good point there with regard to the decision about Brexit. That has undoubtedly put us into what will be an extended period of uncertainty for business, and therefore investment tends to be put on hold. 1905 What we have done as a Government – and I think the Chief Minister has highlighted this previously – is that there is now another group, a cross-Government group, that will be considering the best way forward, and that will be ongoing also throughout the summer. As far as Economic Development, there will be engagement specifically with the different sectors to understand what the impact is, and what we can tell you is that we have had a 1910 number of businesses come forward, encouragingly, to highlight what those opportunities are. So, yes, we are aware of it and we are working with business and industry very closely, but there is a high-level cross-Government group that is looking at the wider issues of Brexit.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Malarkey. 1915 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President, and may I congratulate Mr President on his new post. Would the Minister not agree that, with the launch of the new University College this September and the opportunities going forward for our higher education into the future in that 1920 students can stay on Island and do more courses before having to leave the Island, it will help in the future to keep our local higher education people on the Island, and this can only be a good move forward for future years? And hopefully, if it can be rolled out in the future, one day we could have a standalone university on the Island, which will prevent many of our students having to leave this Island, so we will not be losing them to the big picture across, because it will be 1925 better for our economy over here if they stay and are educated here and work on the Island.

The President: Reply, sir.

The Minister: Yes, the Hon. Member makes a very valid point with regard to the first intake 1930 at the Nunnery this September, which has to be welcomed, undoubtedly. I think the wider point, with regard to the number of degrees that are available here on the Isle of Man through the Department of Education, which have grown over the last few years – again, I think that has to be applauded and that is an opportunity for our young people. The other point he makes, with regard to vocational, which we do need to treat, I believe, 1935 equally to academic achievements, in terms of increasing career opportunities … and we recognise what work has been done there with regard to the Nunnery and the ICT, but also engineering and the work that we have done across Government, particularly with Education, to increase that opportunity for what has been a very strong and positive thriving industry for the Isle of Man. But we have a whole host of other apprenticeships that we are hoping to roll out, 1940 and that is in ICT, that is in social care and that is in the finance areas too. My hon. colleague, Mr Cregeen, who is working on the skills and employment side, can confirm that we have got a lot of work that has been done there and we will rolling those out in the very near future.

18. Economic grants – Fraudulent applications

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

What action he is taking to deter fraudulent conduct on the part of applicants for economic grants to identify offenders and to bring them to justice? ______1858 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The President: Question 18. Hon. Member, Mr Karran. 1945 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, what action is he taking to deter fraudulent conduct on the part of applicants for economic grants and to identify offenders and bring them to justice? I so ask the Minister for Economic Development.

1950 The President: I call on the Minister for Economic Development, Mr Skelly, to reply.

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I would refer the Hon. Member to the answer I gave in the House of Keys on 12th April. It did quiz us, I have to say, but whilst there are occasional business failures I am unaware of any 1955 fraudulent conduct on the part of any applicants for economic grants. I would suggest that the Department’s systems and processes are sufficiently robust for their purposes. I would reiterate that the Department takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure that grants and other forms of assistance are awarded lawfully and fully in line with the appropriate statutory requirements and guidance and that they are used for the purpose 1960 intended. If the Hon. Member is aware of any case where a grant has been awarded in error or possible instances of misrepresentation or fraud, I would be grateful to meet with him and discuss this and follow it up.

1965 The President: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that we have got to make sure that the consistency, when we talk about benefit fraud … that the betrayal of the trust, as far as the ordinary taxpayer, by turning a blind eye to fraudulent activities … if exposed, will be prosecuted 1970 and will not be covered up as far as it being a bit of an inconvenience politically, as far as prosecutions are concerned? Would the Minister not agree that there are regular examples of what has happened over the last 20 years in this Chamber? The film studio was one, Invisimail was another, where we had Public Accounts Committee reports, where the problem is the fact there is too much connection 1975 between the hip of Public Accounts and executive Government in order to actually bring about prosecutions that would have happened if they had been social security frauds.

The President: The Minister.

1980 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. My answer was really on the basis of this administration, so that is as far back as I went. However, I think he highlights a very valid point about consistency. Fraud is fraud, whether that be, as he highlights, benefit fraud, or whether it be fraud in applying for grants or assistance. As stated in the original Answer – and I will stand by this – the Department of Economic 1985 Development will take very seriously its responsibility, and should we have any information … We do, as Hon. Members in this Court, have a responsibility to report if we have any knowledge or information, and I would certainly welcome that. Thank you very much.

1990 The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I am delighted to hear that there is not much, or none, in this administration. I am just wondering what actions would be available to the Minister if something was brought to his

______1859 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

1995 attention that would certainly look as if there had been a fraud on the public purse? What actions are available to him?

The President: Minister.

2000 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. What we would do is we would obviously look at what the statutory requirements and guidance are, but if there are any specific cases I would suggest to contact me personally and we will open up an investigation of any potential suspicious activity of any nature. I welcome that from all Members if they have any information. 2005 The President: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not agree that this is going to be even more important with the fact that you have got a £50 million bond which can be a move in the right 2010 direction as far as the economy is concerned? What assurances can we have that there will be a consistent approach, when people have looked the other way in the past when it comes to grants and loan schemes from the previous Department of Industry? What assurances can we have that, when we see in Question 15, where there is 2015 recommendation for a prosecution and the fact that, as far as planning enforcement is concerned, the Acting Attorney General is unable to make sure that these legitimate concerns of the law being broken … that we will not see an inconsistency where we only have the consistency when it talks about dealing with people on the dole or at the bottom of our society, to make sure that we do not end up with the situation that we have had in the past, and we 2020 hope that we can ring-fence your £50 million from not ending up in a similar situation?

The President: Mr Skelly.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 2025 Yes, once more, and I would condone the point of consistency: fraud is fraud, no matter how it should be achieved. He highlighted, I think, Question 15, about planning enforcement. I do not think any Hon. Member in this Court does not have anyone, and has always had someone, who has contacted them about this particular issue. There is an outstanding number of people in this particular 2030 area, and it is a source of frustration for all of us. However, specifically regarding Economic Development and the £50 million Enterprise Development Scheme – which, as stated previously, is just about to kick off – we will have checks and balances in place; but, very importantly to remember, whilst this is a large sum and this is over five years, the sums that will be granted in terms of a loan or equity will only be the 2035 minor part of the investment, up to 20%-25%. Therefore, whoever is applying should have funding up to the remaining amount, and if it is gaining that through normal financial institutions they would also have to go through the normal rigorous tests with regard to regulations and guidance in respect of that too. I thank him very much for the Question.

______1860 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

EDUCATION AND CHILDREN

19. QEII High School – STEM block

The Hon. Member for Peel (Mr Harmer) to ask the Minister for Education and Children:

What progress has been made towards a STEM block for QEII School?

2040 The President: Hon. Member for Peel. Question 19.

Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to ask the Minister for Education and Children: what progress has been made towards a STEM block for QEII School? 2045 The President: I call on the Minister for Education and Children, the Hon. Member Mr Crookall.

The Minister for Education and Children (Mr Crookall): Thank you, Mr President. 2050 The Department is in the early stages of considering future development options for the Queen Elizabeth II High School to increase capacity to meet a roll which is expected to rise in the short to medium term following the extensive residential development in the town and also addressing existing suitability issues across the school. The Department is to make an initial provision for such future development as part of the 2055 forthcoming 2017-18 Budget process and will be looking at confirming the need and developing a feasibility study over the balance of this financial year to support a business case. As the Hon. Member who has just resumed his seat and who asked the Question will note from his Question, the development may well take the form of a new STEM block – which is a science, technology, engineering and maths block – with the existing accommodation occupied 2060 by the subjects being refurbished and converted to provide additional accommodation for post- 16 and other subject areas, and improving the overall capacity and quality of the accommodation. Thank you, Mr President.

2065 The President: Supplementary question, Mr Harmer.

Mr Harmer: Thank you for the Answer, Mr President. Would the Education Minister agree with me that providing facilities across the Island in all the regions, in Castletown and Peel and Ramsey, is important? And does the science, 2070 engineering and technology fit in – which I would commend the University College – with that strategy and moving that forward?

The President: Reply, sir.

2075 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Yes, I think the provision of a new STEM block at the QEII probably does fit in with our UCM and the way we have been working with DED. I will compliment them because they have been complimenting us this morning and we have worked well together for the last couple of years. I think it does complement the whole set-up for the Island in the future, as well as the Ramsey, 2080 Castletown and Douglas secondary schools.

______1861 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

I would like this opportunity to thank Hon. Members for the last five years of their support of the Department, because we have had a lot of investment in the Department of Education vis-à- vis the future of the Isle of Man and the students. Thank you, Mr President.

20. Department of Education and Children – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Education and Children:

What in the past five years was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department?

2085 The President: Question 20. Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: What, in the past five years, was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department? To the Shirveishagh Ynsee as Paitchyn, the Minister for Education and Children.

2090 The President: I call on the Minster to reply, Mr Crookall.

The Minister of Education and Children (Mr Crookall): Thank you, Mr President. The answer to this Question is bound to be subjective and is one on which there will be a range of views amongst Members and the public. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that 2095 my Department has been working hard over the past five years to achieve the best value for the public’s money. We have made significant progress in making savings and improving efficiency. We continue to play our part in addressing the fiscal and financial challenges facing the Island, while protecting our frontline services.

2100 The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Could the Minister say if he is aware of any cases of applicants for student grants being refused because of a lack of Department money to fund them? Out of the two options, of which one is to spend the additional £50 million on education for 2105 the future of education, for the youth of this nation, or £50 million on high-risk, low-return films, which would he say would be better as far as the future economic prospects? Would the Minister say if he would agree that education is more important to parents of young people on this Island than entertainment?

2110 The President: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Mr President, the options for funding students within my Department has not suffered at all as a result of our budget. I think I picked up the suggestion that we should maybe have access to some of the £50 million from DED to future that. I would be interested to take 2115 that up with the Hon. Member, if that is what he was suggesting. If he could clarify if that was not; that is what I thought I picked up from him. But as far as funding is concerned from my Department, nobody has suffered as a result of that at this time.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran. 2120 Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh Ynsee clarify that the fact is that there have not been any funding difficulties as far as potential people going, as far as grants are concerned? ______1862 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Would he not agree that the fact is that instead of putting £50 million into a Media Development Fund, which is now about £30 million, it would be far better that his Department 2125 has that money to spend, as far as the future wellbeing as far as education is concerned on this Island?

The President: Minister.

2130 The Minister: Mr President, I have to say those who are entitled to grants have got them so far to date. As far as the £30 million or £50 million with Economic Development, whether that would be better in Education or Health would be a matter for the Court to decide. The Court has decided that £50 million sits with DED for investment into the future of the Isle of Man economy and vis- 2135 à-vis that will come, through Treasury, back to the Departments, if we have it to spend. We would welcome any more money to spend on our students in the future – of course we would; that could always be spent. As the Minister for Health would tell you, his Department could spend any money too, sir.

2140 Mr Karran: Just a point of order, Eaghtyrane.

The President: Point of order.

Mr Karran: I am not talking about the £50 million there; I am talking about the £50 million in 2145 the Media Development Fund, which now has substantially lost a considerable amount of money, and that is the issue I am talking about to the Hon. Member.

The President: All right, as the Hon. Member knows, that is not a point of order; it is a clarification. 2150 Supplementary question, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Seeing the Education Minister raise the issue of grants being paid to everybody who is eligible, is he aware that there are children who now cannot go to university because their 2155 parents will not support them, and yet their entitlement to assistance is based on their parents’ income?

The President: Minister.

2160 The Minister: I am not aware, but I would be more than happy to talk to the Hon. Member if that is the case.

Mrs Beecroft: That is the case.

2165 The Minister: If you would like to speak to me afterwards, I will happily take that up with you.

The President: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.

2170 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh Ynsee not agree that, if we had had that £50 million, which is now about £36 million … And isn’t it a shame that we have got to get that information not from this Chamber, but actually from UK registration in the adjacent island because of their refusal to do so?

______1863 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The fact is we would not be a situation where many working class children are now not able 2175 to go to university because they cannot afford the loan system that is being inflicted as far as the policy that was brought about when he was Minister for Education.

The President: Reply, sir.

2180 The Minister: Mr President, I do not believe anybody has been kept back from the going to university if they have been able to apply, as the system that is available to those who want to apply to the grant system, if they are within the bounds, they are able to go to university.

The President: Final supplementary, Mr Quirk. 2185 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Can I ask the Minister, then, would he not congratulate us on the Island for providing those facilities for children who want to stay on the Island and the opportunities to go to the new facility down at the Nunnery; the facility that we expanded at Greenfield Road, the engineering 2190 block; that we have made an opportunity for all the children on the Island to go every different way, which way they want, including the nurses that we need for our own hospital? If we all had more money, Minister, we would want to spend it in our own Departments, but Health and Education would be the two of them. Would he not consider that is the best way?

2195 The President: Minister I invite you, (Laughter and interjections) if you wish, to reply to this interesting wording –

The Minister: Mr President, I would be happy to support the views of Mr Quirk, who I believe is trying to support the Department and I thank him. (Laughter) 2200 The President: Good. Thank you very much. Hon. Members, that brings us to the end of the morning session of Question Time. I intend to resume at 2.30 and continue Questions until three o’clock. That give us the allotted time per Standing Orders. 2205 With that, we will now adjourn for lunch and return at 2.30 p.m.

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

The President: Fastyr mie, Hon. Members

Members: Fastyr mie, Mr President.

2210 The President: Please be seated.

21. Department of Education and Children – Expenditure during dissolution

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Education and Children:

What plans he has for spending taxpayers’ money in his Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved; and whether those items of expenditure have been subject to the scrutiny and approval of Tynwald? ______1864 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The President: We resume our Order Paper and we are at Question 21. We shall take Question 21 in the name of the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane: what plans he has for spending taxpayers’ money in his Department 2215 during the period the House of Keys is dissolved; and whether those items of expenditure have been subject to the scrutiny and approval by Tynwald? I so ask the Shirveishagh Ynsee as Cloan – the Minister for Education and Children.

The President: I call on the Minister to reply, Mr Crookall. 2220 The Minister for Education and Children (Mr Crookall): Thank you, Mr President. The Department’s budget for the current financial year was approved by Tynwald in February. My Department’s spending will be in line with that budget. Any expenditure incurred by the DEC whilst Keys is dissolved will relate to its ongoing operation. Departments do not 2225 cease to operate when Keys has been dissolved. Staff and tuition fees will continue to be paid, teaching resources purchased and our sports facility will continue to operate. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Mr Karran, supplementary. 2230 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, can the Shirveishagh say if he agrees that large sums of public money should not be spent unless it is fully considered and authorised by the elected representatives of the people in the parliament? Would the Minister agree that it is vital that accountability is maintained during the period 2235 between the period between the dissolution of the parliament and the election of the new House; and would the Minister agree that holding a public office is to be in the service of the good of the electorate?

The President: Minister to reply. 2240 The Minister: Mr President, I object to the questioning here by the Hon. Member for Onchan. My Department’s budget was set by this Hon. Court in February. As every year, it will follow that budget, as in last summer, this summer and next summer; whether the Keys are dissolved or not, it will be spent according to that budget. If at any time my budget is questioned, it will be 2245 questioned by Treasury or the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee or the PAC. We will continue to spend it properly as per the budget, sir.

The President: Mr Karran.

2250 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, the Shirveishagh fails to understand that we are supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. What the question is down here for is the likes of the multimillion pound scandal over the IBS several years ago when the tricks were done while the parliament was in abeyance. What assurances can I have that you will actually operate within the confines of the fact that 2255 you will not be committing the Isle of Man taxpayers to large sums of money outside what it has to do at the present time?

The President: Minister.

2260 The Minister: Mr President, I honestly do not know what the Hon. Member is looking for here. It may have happened before on somebody else’s watch, but certainly, as I said, my budget will be spent the way it is intended to, the way it was spelt out within the budget in ______1865 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

February, and if there is any questioning to be done I am sure I will be questioned as soon as Tynwald returns in October, sir. 2265 The President: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that after the fact that you have committed the taxpayer is little or no use as far as that is concerned? Can the Minister assure us that he will not 2270 break with the convention that you should come to parliament with any new policy decisions? What assurances have we got that there will be no initiatives, like we had with the IBS, where it was all done when the House was in abeyance to make sure that sort of carry on will be stopped? It might be hard for the Hon. Member to understand, but that is basic parliamentary democracy. 2275 The President: I am a bit concerned at the line of questioning. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) (Interjections) It is straying out and it is asking the Minister to speculate on matters that are not within his control.

2280 Mr Karran: They are in his control.

The President: Hon. Member! Minister, you may reply where you feel able to answer.

2285 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Just to clarify again what I said earlier, the budget will be spent – our budget will be spent – as it was agreed in the budget in February this year, and nothing outside of that. As a Minister, I will make sure that is what is done.

58. Translarna drug – Policy for use

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

What his policy is regarding the use of the drug Translarna?

The President: I move to the next Question, but, Hon. Members, exceptionally, I would wish 2290 to bring forward Question 58 to be tabled now. This is with the agreement of the questioner and the Member concerned and the Member answering the Question. Question 58, Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Yes, thank you. I thank you, Mr President, and I thank the Minister for agreeing 2295 to bring this forward. May I ask the Minister for Health and Social Care what his policy is regarding the drug Translarna?

The President: I call on the Minister to reply, Mr Quayle. 2300 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Mr President, just for a point of clarification, I thought I had it down here as Oral Answer 59 not 58. Have I got it wrong?

______1866 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mrs Beecroft: It is 58 on mine. 2305 Mr Quirk: The agenda was changed.

The Minister: Oh, the agenda was changed. Sorry, I am on an older date then.

2310 The President: It is the Question regarding the drug Translarna.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Based on advice from the Clinical Recommendations Committee, the Department of Health and Social Care has agreed a policy not to fund Translarna for patients with nonsense mutation 2315 Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in the Isle of Man. The Department has a limited budget with which to fund all health and social care for our population. It is not possible to fund everything that may be requested and therefore hard decisions have to be made on occasion. The Department of Health and Social Care set up the Clinical Recommendations Committee 2320 to draft policy regarding new drugs and other medical treatments which would require additional funding if they were to be included within NHS provision on the Island. The Clinical Recommendations Committee follows a clear process and makes recommendations against an ethical framework. The final decision on funding sits with the Department of Health and Social Care Chief Executive. Policy statements, which include the reasons for the decision, are publicly 2325 available on the Government website. Ataluren Translarna is a new drug for a particular type of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. This condition is very rare. The drug has a limited licence from the UK Medicines and Health Care Regulatory Authority and the continuance of the licence is dependent on the manufacturer submitting further evidence to show that the drug is effective in slowing down the loss of 2330 walking ability which is part of the condition. This limited licence reflects the fact that the current evidence of effectiveness, from clinical trials, is inadequate to show whether or not the drug is beneficial in slowing decline in walking. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) publishes guidance for the NHS in England and Wales. NICE has issued a draft recommendation that Translarna should be 2335 available on the NHS for patients with nonsense mutation Duchenne as part of what is, in effect, an extended study designed to provide data on clinical outcomes. NICE is proposing that the NHS-funded study, which they call a managed access scheme, should run for five years, after which the outcomes and funding will be reviewed. The Clinical Recommendations Committee considered all the evidence reviewed by NICE and 2340 the arguments that led to NICE recommending the managed access scheme. However, the Committee concluded that the evidence for clinical effectiveness was currently inadequate to justify the very high cost – a sum of around £200,000 to £250,000 per individual per year. The Committee also concluded that funding for what is in effect a clinical study should not be a priority, given all other calls upon resources. 2345 The President: Supplementary question, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Could the Health Minister confirm when we do not comply with NICE, because when a new 2350 drug comes out we are told it is not available because it is not complying with NICE guidelines, yet in April NICE recommended the use, as he said, provided it was under a managed access programme and provided that you could get it at the right price? It is under a managed access programme, it is obtainable at the right price. The Isle of Man can share in the deal that the NHS have with the manufacturer. So why aren’t we going by NICE 2355 guidelines in this particular instance? ______1867 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The President: Minister.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I do believe I did answer that in the original Answer to the Hon. Member. 2360 This is effectively a trial. If this drug worked beyond doubt we would not be having this five- year trial that they are having in England. It is also worth pointing out, Mr President, that Scotland and Northern Ireland have also decided not to fund the Translarna trials and they feel that the treatment of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy resulting from a nonsense mutation … that the evidence does not support 2365 using it at the moment. So it is not just the Isle of Man who has made this decision; it is Scotland and Northern Ireland too. I am sure the clinical review Committee will review the decision once they see the data from the trial; and if it is proven to be a success then I would be very disappointed if we did not then allow the drug.

2370 The President: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Is the Minister aware that this is not actually an extended clinical trial? There is a big difference between an extended clinical trial and the managed access programme which has 2375 been agreed with NICE. Could he further clarify why children in England have access to this and we are supposed to have the same access as our counterparts and yet we would not have it here? There seems to be a real void, a big discrepancy, between what is available in England and what is available here; and the NICE guidelines seem to be used almost at whim when we feel we want to use them, 2380 rather than being used in a consistent format? If we are following NICE guidelines, we are following NICE guidelines; if we are not then we are not.

The President: Minister to reply.

2385 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. It is disappointing that the Hon. Member has had the opportunity to ask these questions of the panel themselves. In fact, our Department publishes all these answers on our website, which are available at www.gov.im/media/1351758/crc16-04-jun-16-ataluren-translarna-for- duchenne-muscular-dystrophy-with-a-nonsense-mutation-in-the-dystrophin-gene.pdf and that 2390 sets out the full background. It is a highly complex case. The Hon. Member, to the best of my knowledge, has not approached, for example, Mr Peake, who is the Chairman of the clinical review Committee, the Hon. Member for Douglas North; she has not approached any member of the Department to have an in-depth discussion to raise these points. 2395 I have given the answer based on the expert advice from our clinicians, clearly stating why at this moment in time they do not feel it is beneficial and that the Isle of Man should do it. I hope no Hon. Member of this Court will feel that any of the political Members of the Department take this decision lightly. It is a horrible position to be in, (A Member: Hear, hear.) but we have a duty of care to the people of the Isle of Man to take advice from our clinicians on what is the best 2400 way forward, and they have not supported this, as is the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland too.

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

2405 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. Can the Minister confirm my understanding that there are two decisions of the Clinical Recommendations Committee: the first one is about the policy, which has clearly been ______1868 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

explained today; and the second one, as I understand, there is a chance for an individual to make an exceptional application through the consultant? 2410 Has the Minister said today that any exceptional application is already automatically turned down, or is there a chance for an exceptional application to be made in this case?

The President: Minister.

2415 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. The Hon. Member for Douglas West raises a good point. Yes, the Committee is there for the consultant who represents a patient – because I do not want to get into an individual case on this, Mr President; an individual patient cannot refer themselves, but their consultant can apply to the clinical review Committee to put forward the case and the Committee review the 2420 decision.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. 2425 I wonder if the Hon. Minister could just clarify something that I do not quite understand, in that we are told NICE has approved this drug, (Mrs Beecroft: Five years.) but is it not a fact that it is only for the trial of 50 children over a five-year period – that it is not available to all children that suffer from this particular ailment? Is that true?

2430 The President: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President, and I thank the Hon. Member, the Deputy Speaker, for his question. The evidence I have got before me, Mr President, is that it is a five-year trial and they are 2435 looking to limit it to 50 people to have the trial. This is an incredibly rare disease; the prevalence is 1 in 9 per hundred thousand people who have the disease and therefore it may well be that there may only be 50 in the UK, but based on that percentage there will be more, I would have thought, than 50 people – in England, sorry – but I cannot give any more information on that.

2440 The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Going back to the NICE guidelines, I still would like some clarification on the policy – do we stick to them or not? Because my understanding is that this is not now classed as a clinical trial, 2445 it is classed as a managed access programme, because of the rarity of this condition. My understanding again is that the manufacturer is funding for 50 children at a very reduced rate, on the basis that they have access to the data that flows from that so that further proof can be shown. You cannot have a clinical trial extending for years and years on end. It is just not moral and nobody could justify it, which is why the clinical trial has stopped, NICE have 2450 recommended that it is available for children with this condition for the next five years, provided it is under a managed access programme, which we do have here. So I do not know why it is going to a Clinical Recommendation Committee –

The President: Where is the question please? 2455 Mrs Beecroft: – which is what I would like the Minister to answer. If we are applying NICE guidelines, why is it being sent to a Clinical Recommendation Committee in the first place? Why are we just not applying NICE guidelines?

______1869 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

2460 The President: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. The facts, as presented to me, are that the reports already into this drug are not conclusive. There are various tests: it has failed to show any signs of reducing the length of mobility in 2465 young people in one of the tests; in the other, I believe, in the six-minute walking test, it was 37 or 38 extra metres that someone who had been on the drug was able to walk. Sadly, the drug cannot save a life; it can purely reduce the loss of mobility, at best, over a certain period of time. Therefore, because the clinical trials that have taken place so far are inadequate to show whether or not the drug is beneficial in slowing the decline in walking, it has 2470 been agreed that NICE are going to do an extended study designed to provide data on the clinical outcomes. That is where maybe the Hon. Member for Douglas South and myself are having a different interpretation. I can only go on, obviously, the evidence provided to me. It is highly complicated and it is incredibly emotive too, but it is disappointing that we have not been approached to 2475 have a full discussion on this. I could have even brought in some of the medical clinicians who made the decision, to answer any technical questions that the Hon. Member had – but it did not happen.

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Karran. 2480 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the Shirveishagh clarify … I do not understand his statistics: 1 in 9 in 50,000? But could the Shirveishagh not agree that the point is it is not the individual case, it is actually the policy change that has been allowed to happen with this case, and that is that we agreed, as one of the people who supported the previous Minister when Mr 2485 Anderson had a situation – and, fortunately, he did that and it did work for his constituent – that the situation is that you are breaking your own policy? You agreed, we agreed in this House, that we would support any NICE recommendations for our citizens on the same basis as what we would have in England and Wales. Are you now absconding from that policy decision that was made in the past? That is the 2490 issue that we need to know here, outside the individual case. That is the issue that we need to know and I hope that the Hon. Member will reaffirm that our policy is, in Tynwald, that we follow NICE guidelines; and if a citizen of the UK can get it, then it should be the same in the Isle of Man. Is that not the case?

2495 The President: Minister.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. In answer to the Hon. Member’s questions, the evidence given to me is that the trials are not conclusive. NICE has not given total 100% support to this. If it did it would not be having a five- 2500 year trial with 50 people taking part. If it was straightforward, NICE approves this, everyone in England would be getting this and there would not be any further trials. This is a trial because there are doubts, I am led to believe by my medical professionals, into the benefits and efficiencies of this drug. An awful lot of drugs, sadly, the manufacturers make all sorts of claims to have certain benefits and, sadly, it has been our experience and that of the UK in general, that 2505 an awful lot of these drugs, whilst costing us a lot of money, do not deliver what they say on the tin, effectively.

The President: Supplementary, Mrs Beecroft.

2510 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President.

______1870 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Would the Minister confirm that I have actually contacted him twice about this? The second time was after the news release by NHS England on 7th July, saying that they had successfully negotiated access to the new drug treatment for children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy on this particular gene. I asked him, ‘Would his committee have another look at it?’ and he said, 2515 ‘No’, so I really saw little point in making appointments to go and see them or to carry it any further. I would also ask the Minister: has he had the information correctly given to him about the trials? Because he said it was too short to demonstrate the impact. The information I have is that in both studies subset analysis was analysed in those boys who were starting to decline; and this 2520 is over the period of the six-minute walk that he referred to. Zero of the 69 boys treated with Ataluren lost the ability to walk, while six of the 74 boys on placebo lost the ability to walk during the 48-week period. A trial with the duration of 48 weeks is standard in rare diseases, where no current treatment exists. Is the Minister aware of those figures?

2525 The President: Minister.

The Minister: Yes, Mr Speaker – sorry Mr President. My apologies. I will get used to it. At least I did not call you Madam President! Yes, I am aware of these figures, but equally there are other figures where tests have been 2530 inconclusive and the manufacturers of the drug have withheld giving NICE evidence when they have asked for some of the tests. So there are always two sides of the coin. One of the tests has been supportive to the outcome; one of them not so, but there are areas of evidence that the manufacturers have not provided to NICE when asked. So it is not a good place to be, Mr President, but I am not a qualified clinician. None of us here are qualified 2535 clinicians – maybe with the exception of the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Deputy Speaker, who is a qualified pharmacist – but we have to go on the advice given by our experts, and that is what we have gone with.

The President: I am taking two more supplementaries. 2540 Mr Hall.

Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr President. Does the Minister not agree and feel that on this particular sensitive issue there needs to be perhaps some more clarity surrounding this particular drug and [Inaudible] it is for? 2545 One thing I would like to highlight, if he could perhaps go away and have a look at the … I have actually looked at the research that the figure that there have been 2,500 boys that have this condition and the 50 that have been selected – I have not heard the word ‘trial’ or read that word in that context, but the 50 that have been selected – are because they are most eligible because the drug is most effective for those who have not yet become wheelchair bound and so 2550 can he, please, go away and perhaps come back with some more information and clarity on it, because there is a bit of a zone of confusion, I think, around – ?

The President: Minister to reply.

2555 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Yes, I am more than happy to write to the Hon. Member for Onchan, giving him an update on his concerns. He is right: this drug is more beneficial to people when they are able to walk still without any signs or loss of mobility. When they are in a wheelchair it is probably too late to use for it to be effective. 2560 So, yes, I will have that clarified – that point. It is a highly complex decision. It has not been made lightly. It is most regrettable, No one would want to be in this position, but based on the advice given to us by our Clinical Recommendations Committee, we have declined the use of it. ______1871 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The President: Final supplementary, Mrs Beecroft.

2565 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Could I ask the Minister if what he is saying is true, that NICE did not get some of the evidence that they requested, why are they comfortable saying that it should be used for the next five years? Why are they recommending it for use? And further, does he believe that his Clinical Recommendations Committee are actually better qualified than NICE? 2570 The President: Minister.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I think one of the complaints about the trials before was that they were only for two years 2575 and therefore they were not conclusive enough. Therefore it has been felt that there will need to be a five-year trial for it to be conclusive. I appreciate there will be various medical arguments, but it is not just the Isle of Man; Scotland have come to exactly the same conclusion too, and have Northern Ireland. Their medical experts say that at this moment in time the evidence presented for the use of this drug 2580 on people is not good enough for them to warrant using it. So that is a clear comment.

22. Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture – Biggest financial waste in past five years

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

What in the past five years was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department?

The President: We turn now to Question 22, Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, what in the past five years has been the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in your Department? I ask the Minister of Environment, Food and Agriculture. 2585 The President: I call on the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, Mr Ronan.

The Minister for the Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr President. 2590 I can comfortably say that there has been nothing which I would view as a waste of taxpayers’ money, although I accept that in the public’s eyes there will be a range of opinions. One person’s waste of time is the next person’s top priority, but I suppose, Mr President, that is politics, especially on issues like environmental matters. I think it is important to recognise my Department’s efforts over the last two years to engage 2595 with the Scope of Government Report, to work closely with other Departments and the third sector. We have made significant progress in making savings and improving efficiency, and in playing our part in addressing the fiscal and financial challenges facing our Island.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran. 2600 Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply. Allowing that it is reported that the Department spends approximately £214 per person per year, do you believe that we are getting value for money as far as your Department is

______1872 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

concerned? What are your views as far as the issue of the Countryside Care Scheme? Has it 2605 become a strapline for the Freedom to Flourish for the few to fleece the rest, as far as the taxpayer is concerned? And does the Minister think that maybe he needs to re-evaluate his Answer in light of the issues that maybe other members of the public would like to maybe inform him of … what he feels have been wastes of money?

2610 The President: Minister.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I am more than comfortable. I think the Department, certainly in my time and my predecessor’s time, has well worked within its budgets to the guidelines set by this Hon. Court 2615 through budgetary processes. In regard to per head, per person, I cannot comment on that, sir. I would need to get that information. The Hon. Member for Onchan asked me about a view on the Countryside Care Scheme: the Countryside Care Scheme no longer exists. It is the Agricultural Development Scheme which we adjusted to better target and focus the monies available on to the active 2620 farmers of this Island in the agricultural industry. So I am comfortable with the direction of travel which the then Countryside Care and the now Agricultural Development Scheme is taking. I think it is unfair to say that this is fleecing the rest of us, because you have got to remember, Mr President, the competition which our farmers are facing around our competitive markets, and what we are trying to do – and I think the Hon. 2625 Member has been wholly supportive of this – is to find better, new, innovative ways for the agriculture industry to move forward. I am the first to admit this is a process which is going to take time, but it is certainly a process which is underway. Statistics and data are already coming in for new business start-ups, and our work with the Department of Economic Development. It is quite clear that this policy is bearing fruit. 2630 I appreciate the industry is a slow-moving industry. It is a very difficult industry to work in with lots of different complications and circumstances surrounding it. But with regard to the question set by Mr Karran, I am comfortable with what we have done in regard to the agricultural development scheme and other areas within our Department, sir.

2635 The President: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh then explain, if the Countryside Care Scheme was so good, why he had to change it? Would he not agree that when we talk about guidelines, one of the problems has been that 2640 because of the lack of a real independent forceful parliamentary process, really speaking the guidelines are made under the patronage of executive Government anyway, as far as that is concerned? I would be interested to know if there was nothing wrong with the Countryside Care Scheme, why have we had to change it? 2645 The President: Minister. (Interjection by Mr Karran)

The Minister: Mr President, I think the Hon. Member for Onchan just answered his own question. I did not say the Countryside Scheme was good: if it was good, I would have left it 2650 alone! So this is why we felt the need to adjust and change it to meet what we felt was a better way forward for the industry and the main headline banner in all of this really was to bring more people into the industry, to make it more open and more importantly encourage the active farmer, which was not the case before. This is now the case, sir. This is again, a process as we 2655 are going through. So the Countryside Care Scheme was good for its day. It was from the old ______1873 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

headage days, and it is something which I understand why it was put in place. It is like everything; you need to address and assess, and that is what we have done with the Agricultural Development Scheme, and as I said in the previous answer, I am more than comfortable with it.

Suspension of Standing Order 3.5(2) to complete Questions for Oral Answer – Motion lost

The President: Hon. Members, we have reached the end of our allotted time for Oral 2660 Questions. Hon. Member for Onchan.

Mr Karran: I move that we suspend Standing Orders to allow the rest of the Questions to be taken at this sitting. (Laughter and interjections)

2665 The President: Is there a seconder?

Mrs Beecroft: I am happy to second.

The President: Hon. Members, I think we will not waste time, we will go straight to a vote. 2670 Sixteen votes required in the Keys; six votes in the Council. Please vote, Hon. Members.

Electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 5, Noes 17

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

The Deputy Speaker: In the Keys, Mr President, it is 5 for and 17 against.

In the Council – Ayes 2, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Cretney Mr Coleman Mr Turner Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson

The President: In the Council, 2 for and 4 against. The motion therefore fails to carry. The remaining Questions will be answered in the normal way in writing.

______1874 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Questions for Written Answer

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

23. DEFA budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

What plans he has for spending taxpayers’ money in his Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved, and whether those items of expenditure have been subject to the scrutiny and approval of Tynwald?

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Any expenditure incurred 2675 or committed by the Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved, will relate to on-going business under existing policies. The day to day operation of my Department will continue. Tynwald approved the 2016-17 Budget in February 2016.

24. Maintenance of Douglas properties – Policy on prosecutions for failure

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

What his policy is on prosecutions for failing to maintain and repair property in Douglas; and what criteria he applies to decide on what action to take?

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): The Building Control Act 2680 1991 confers rights onto a local authority to take action in respect of buildings that are in a ruinous, dilapidated or neglected condition or unfinished state detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. It is therefore for each of the local authorities to determine what their policy is on prosecutions in their areas. The Hon. Member may recall that the DOI put forward earlier this year the Local Government 2685 and Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2016. This Bill is now awaiting Royal Assent. The Bill, by way of amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984, the Local Government Act 1985, and the Building Control Act 1991, increases the powers for local authorities by, amongst other things, lowering the test for the service of notices and introducing the ability to serve fixed penalty notices for failure to comply with notices. It is hoped that this 2690 will make it easier for local authorities to respond to such issues. The option of being able to take action by means of Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) will assist authorities with the enforcement of the legislation. Authorities are sometimes reluctant to take enforcement action through the courts because of the potential costs involved or the time taken to progress such action. Also, if the degree of detriment to the land was minor, authorities are 2695 conscious that under the current legislation that a person might end up with a criminal record if convicted for what could be perceived as a ‘minor’ offence. However, local authorities need to recognise that if a FPN is not paid, then the authority would need to consider recovering the

______1875 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

penalty by way of civil debt and undertaking any remedial work themselves or alternatively proceeding to full prosecution through the courts. 2700 The Environment, Safety and Health Directorate produced a booklet in 2010 to assist local authorities with the enforcement of this area of legislation. It is envisaged that new guidance will be produced once the new Bill has been given Royal Assent.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

25. Health treatment for non-Isle of Man residents – Numbers and costs

The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

How many (a) UK (b) EU (c) non-EU residents have been treated by the Isle of Man Health Service; how much has been billed for these services; and how much of the costs has been recovered in each of the last two years?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Firstly, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for asking this Question, as it does highlight an issue which has been under scrutiny in 2705 the UK over the past 12 months, with proposals published to review the current UK charging regime for EU and non-EU visitors who access NHS Services. However, since the UK voted in June to leave the European Union, this is an area of work that will probably need to be revisited! We have a Reciprocal Health Agreement with the UK which was signed in 2010. Through this agreement, the Isle of Man provides access to health services for people who would receive 2710 them under the current NHS rules in the UK. We also have separate health agreements with a number of other countries: again which provide for emergency access to our health services for visitors should they need them. For those people not covered by bilateral agreements with their countries we charge for our services. In answer to the Question, I can report that over the past two years our hospital services saw 2715 3,303 people from the UK, 242 from the EU and 172 people from non-EU countries. The number of temporary residents from the UK seen by GPs during the past two years was 3,562, and an additional 369 people were seen in MEDs in 2014-15. The figure relating to MEDs for 2015-16 is not available. The number of temporary residents from outside the UK seen by GPs in the past two years 2720 was 251 and in MEDs the figure for 2014-15 shows that 50 people were seen. The data for 2015- 16 relating to MEDs is not available. The total amount invoiced for overseas visitors admitted to Noble’s Hospital during the past two years stands at £133,878, of which £119,745 has been recovered. I have a detailed breakdown of the figures which I am more than happy to share with the 2725 Hon. Court.

26. Hip and knee operations etc. – Policy on delay for smokers and overweight patients

The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Mr Singer) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

______1876 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Whether it is the policy of his Department to delay operations, particularly for hip and knee problems owing to a patient being overweight or a smoker?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Each patient is treated as an individual when care plans are considered, and this includes the timing of surgery. Some smokers may have medical problems as a result of smoking which means that they need additional anaesthetic assessment which can lead to delay or even cancellation of their procedures. Any 2730 cancellation or delay in this context is for safety reasons. A person with smoking-related lung disease may require additional investigations such as lung function tests before an anaesthetist feels it is safe to proceed. This inevitably means delay. On occasion, smoking-related disease is such that an anaesthetic has a high chance of being fatal, in which case surgery would not normally go ahead. 2735 With regard to obesity, it is well established that the complications of anaesthesia and surgery are increased if a patient is overweight. It is also well established that symptoms of hip and knee arthritis can be improved by losing weight. Sometimes therefore patients are advised to lose weight as part of the treatment programme for joint pain, and are offered help to do so instead of proceeding straight to a joint replacement. If a patient’s body mass index is over 40, 2740 many surgeons will be reluctant to operate because of enhanced surgical risk including infection and wound breakdown, but each patient is assessed on their merits. In considering the response to the Hon Member’s Question it is important to understand the clinical definition of ‘overweight’. According to the World Health Organisation definitions, overweight refers to a body mass 2745 index from 25-30. It is unlikely that anyone classed as overweight would be refused surgery or have surgery deferred for this reason alone. However, when making clinical decisions about the safety of surgical procedures clinicians are particularly alert to risks associated with those patients who fall into the severely obese or very severely obese categories where significant problems may occur because of weight.

27. Medical consultants – Number per salary spine point

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

How many consultants there are at each salary spine point?

2750 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Consultants have a 20-point pay scale. The number of consultants at each spine point, at 30th June 2016, were as follows:

Spine Number of Point pay point consultants value £ 1 0 2 2 78,381 3 0 4 0 5 2 85,514 6 1 88,781 7 1 92,050 8 2 95,317 9 3 98,585 10 5 107,504 11 4 107,504 12 5 110,773 ______1877 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

13 2 110,773 14 5 114,040 15 1 119,692 16 2 122,960 17 3 122,960 18 1 126,288 19 3 126,288 20 24 131,874

These figures do not include consultants engaged on locum or bank contracts who may have 2755 been working in the Department on 30th June.

HOME AFFAIRS

28. Ramsey Courthouse – Plans for future use

The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Mr Singer) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

What proposals his Department has for the future use of the former Post Office premises at the Courthouse in Ramsey?

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Watterson): The Department has no future interest in retaining Ramsey Courthouse for Department purposes and will initially seek interest within Government for future possible use. If there is no interest within Government, we will seek expressions of interest from outside of 2760 Government for potential future use. However, the rent from the Post Office for the Courthouse was used to offset the cost of renting the Police office in the Ramsey Town Commissioners’ and whatever the final arrangements are for the Courthouse, I would wish the income from the disposal to offset the cost of renting the Police office.

29. Department of Home Affairs – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

What in the past five years was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department?

2765 The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Watterson): The answer to this Question is bound to be subjective, and it is one on which there will be a range of views amongst Members and the public. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that my Department has been working hard over the past five years to achieve better value for the public’s money. We have made significant 2770 progress in making savings and improving efficiency, and in playing our part in addressing the fiscal and financial challenges facing the Island. I am sure that as a Member of the Department, during a period in the last five years, the Hon. Member would have pointed out any wastes of taxpayers’ money, but did not.

______1878 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

30. DHA budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

What plans he has for spending taxpayers’ money in his Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved; and whether those items of expenditure have been subject to the scrutiny and approval of Tynwald?

2775 The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Watterson): Any expenditure incurred or committed by my Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved will relate to ongoing business under existing policies. The day to day operation of my Department will continue. Tynwald approved the 2016-17 Budget in February 2016.

OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING

31. Manx Gas tariff – Reduction or refund

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading:

Whether Manx Gas can lawfully reduce their tariff instead of issuing a refund?

The Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading (Mr Quirk): Since there is no legislation governing 2780 the fixing of gas tariffs, Manx Gas cannot possibly be acting unlawfully. If what the Hon. Member meant to ask is whether the way in which Manx Gas calculates the rebate is consistent with the Regulatory Agreement, I answered that question in another place on 28th June – but for the avoidance of doubt the answer is yes.

32. Private dental and optician services – Dealing with complaints

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading:

Whether the Office of Fair Trading will seek to extend its remit to deal with complaints about private dental and optician services?

The Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading (Mr Quirk): The OFT will not be seeking to extend 2785 its remit to deal with complaints about private dental and optician services. To a limited extent, the OFT can already deal with complaints about dentists and opticians in private practice. Their customers are consumers and as such are entitled to consumer advice and are afforded protection under any applicable consumer protection legislation, for example, those provisions concerning trade descriptions, misleading prices, misleading advertising and 2790 consumer safety. Complaints concerning professional practice such as those about dental procedures and eye tests are not within the remit of the OFT and, in my opinion, should not be so. They should properly be dealt with by the appropriate professional or regulatory body. ______1879 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

CHIEF MINISTER

33. Childcare provision – Government support

The Hon. Member of the Council, Mr Cretney, to ask the Chief Minister:

What consideration the Government has given to additional support for childcare provision on the Island and in particular to implementing the scheme recently introduced in the UK?

2795 The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): The Department of Education and Children has looked very closely at the range of provision across a wide range of jurisdictions, including England, through the work of the Early Years School Improvement Adviser on the ‘British-Irish Council Early Years Work Sector’. In England there is universal provision of 15 hours per week commencing the term after the 2800 child’s third birthday, with additional free provision for two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged families. The Childcare Bill outlined plans for provision for three and four year olds to be extended to 30 hours per week for working parents from September 2017 and this is being rolled out through a Childcare Provision Taskforce. In the States of Guernsey the level provided by the state has recently been agreed at 15 2805 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. There is a pay threshold limit of £150,000 to qualify for funding. In Scotland all three- and four-year-olds receive 600 hours of free childcare provision during the academic year, equating to 15.7 hours per week. The Isle of Man’s pre-school credit scheme, currently provides a standard universal credit of 2810 £800 per annum and a higher credit of £1,500 per annum for those families in receipt of Income- based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employed Person’s Allowance or Income Support. The credits to be used towards the cost of pre-school education in the academic year in which the child’s fourth birthday falls. This credit, provides on average, just under five hours per week in the case of standard credit 2815 and just under nine hours per week for the higher credit. At this sitting of Tynwald, the Department of Education and Children proposes to increase the level of pre-school credit to £1,700 for standard and £2,150 for the higher credit, providing 10 hours and 12.5 hours respectively. The proposed increases to the scheme will result in additional costs of £740,000 and require a total budget of £1.6 million. 2820 This increase in provision would narrow the gap between the Isle of Man and the 15 hours currently provided in England and Guernsey; however, to match this provision would require a further £650,000 per annum. At present the DEC does not propose to move towards a universal provision of 30 hours as there have been issues with sufficiency within the proposal in England, leaving a shortfall of 2825 places across the country. The DEC proposes to monitor the roll out in England in order to see how this situation develops and to learn from best practice. Childcare funding is linked to quality in all jurisdictions and the proposal for increased funding from the DEC has also been linked to the provision of an Early Years Advisory Teacher to provide challenge and support in all pre-school settings and for an Early Years Inspector to work in 2830 partnership with the current Registration and Inspection Early Years Team to move towards a combined inspection model which would have an increased focus on the quality of Education provided. The DEC and DHSC Registration and Inspection team are already working towards introducing this model.

______1880 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

34. Government Department expenditure – Value for money definition

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister:

How he defines value for money in the context of Government Department expenditure of public money?

2835 The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Value for money can be defined in three ways. Spending less – that is, minimising the cost of resources used or required to deliver a service. Spending well – which can broadly be defined as the relationship between the output from services and the resources required to deliver them; and Spending wisely – the relationship between the intended and actual results of public 2840 spending and the outcomes we are seeking to achieve.

35. Case of the Attorney General – Progress

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister:

What progress has been made with settling the case of the Attorney General?

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): The position of Her Majesty’s Attorney General is a Crown appointment. Matters relating to the Attorney General are therefore, dealt with by His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor. 2845 As I have advised on a number of occasions previously I am not a party in these matters and so am unable to comment.

TREASURY

36. Insurance and Pensions Authority – Frequency of reports to Treasury

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

How often the Insurance and Pensions Authority reported to Treasury?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): As an independent regulator the Insurance and Pensions Authority did not report to Treasury nor did the Treasury have political representation on the Board of the Authority. 2850 Treasury, as the relevant Department of the Isle of Man Government, has a responsibility to ensure that the Island’s financial sector, including insurance and pensions businesses, is effectively regulated and supervised. The Authority carried out regulation and supervision as an independent body within the overall policy determined by Treasury. There was a regular dialogue between the Authority and Treasury on an as arising basis. In 2855 addition the Chief Executive was invited to attend Treasury meetings as required.

______1881 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

In the period from 2012 until the dissolution of the authority in October 2015 the Chief Executive attended two meetings with the Treasury. I along with my Chief Financial Officer met with the Board of the Authority on one occasion. I also met with the Chairman, Chief Executive or other officers of the Authority on 18 occasions and the Chief Financial Officer has met with 2860 the Chairman, Chief Executive or other officers of the Authority on 6 occasions. Meetings between the Chief Financial Officer and the Authority occurring throughout 2012 are not included in these statistics as neither Mr Shimmin’s nor Mr Vick’s diaries are available for inspection.

37. Financial Supervision Commission – Frequency of reports to Treasury

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

How often the Financial Supervision Commission reported to Treasury?

2865 The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): As an independent regulator the Financial Supervision Commission did not report to Treasury nor did the Treasury have political representation on the Board of the Commission. Treasury, as the relevant Department of the Isle of Man Government, has a responsibility to ensure that the Island’s financial sector is effectively regulated and supervised. The Commission 2870 carried out regulation and supervision as an independent body within the overall policy determined by Treasury. There was a regular dialogue between the Commission and Treasury on an as-arising basis. In addition the Chief Executive was invited to attend Treasury meetings on a regular basis. In the period from 2012 until the dissolution of the Commission in October 2015 the Chief 2875 Executive attended eight meetings with the Treasury. I along with my Chief Financial Officer met with the Board of the Commission on one occasion. I also met with the Chairman, Chief Executive or other officers of the Commission on 23 occasions and the Chief Financial Officer has met with the Chairman, Chief Executive or other officers of the Commission on 12 occasions. Meetings between the Chief Financial Officer and the Commission occurring throughout 2012 2880 are not included in these statistics as neither Mr Shimmin’s nor Mr Aspden’s diaries are available for inspection.

38. Financial Supervision Authority – Frequency of reports to Treasury

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

How often the Financial Supervision Authority reports to Treasury?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): As an independent regulator the Financial Services Authority does not report to Treasury nor does the Treasury have political representation on the board of the Authority. 2885 Treasury, as the relevant Department of the Isle of Man Government, has a responsibility to ensure that the Island’s financial sector is effectively regulated and supervised. The Authority carries out regulation and supervision as an independent body within the overall policy determined by Treasury. ______1882 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

There is a regular dialogue between the Authority and Treasury on an as-arising basis. In 2890 addition the Chief Executive is invited to attend Treasury meetings on a regular basis. Since the establishment of the Authority in November 2015 the Chief Executive has attended one meeting with the Treasury. I along with my Chief Financial Officer have met with the Board of the Authority on two occasions. I also met with the Chairman, Chief Executive or other officers of the Authority on 10 occasions and the Chief Financial Officer has met with the 2895 Chairman, Chief Executive or other officers of the Authority on nine occasions.

INFRASTRUCTURE

39. DOI budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What plans he has for spending taxpayers’ money in his Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved; and whether those items of expenditure have been subject to the scrutiny and approval of Tynwald?

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): The Department of Infrastructure will continue to spend its approved budget to enable the Isle of Man to function both economically and socially. 2900 Specifically, we will continue to invest in the Isle of Man’s infrastructure, public transport, heritage railways, housing, and Government’s property portfolio and vehicle fleet. Tynwald approved the 2016-17 Budget in February, which included a summary of income and expenditure targets for the Department broken down by its main areas of responsibility. Individual items of expenditure are subject to Tynwald scrutiny and approval in accordance 2905 with established procedures. Regulations and statute provide further assurance that money is spent on items and services which are proper for the Department to purchase.

POLICY AND REFORM

40. Report on Committees and Quasi-Autonomous Entities – Council of Ministers’ recommendations and action plan

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

If he will make a statement on the recommendations and action plan arising from the Council of Ministers’ review of the existence, purpose, nature, membership, functioning and cost of all committees and quasi-autonomous entities?

2910 The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): I thank the Hon. Member for Douglas West for his Question in relation to the Report on Committees and Quasi-Autonomous Entities laid before the Court today and which resulted from the motion that was carried at the January 2016 sitting. The intention of the Report is to provide a current list of Government committees and quasi- 2915 autonomous entities and an overview of their composition. The Report also provides the basis ______1883 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

for a number of further actions which are to be progressed in respect of this matter, these being:  The validation of the list of organisations to enable a definitive register to be compiled, published and maintained; 2920  A review of the purpose, scope, structure, cost and value for money of each organisation to ensure that, as constituted, it remains the most appropriate vehicle to deliver the remit. Hon. Members may wish to note that a number of Departments have already commenced such reviews.  A review of the current corporate governance arrangements with a view to 2925 implementing a standard framework which can be applied consistently across all such organisations; and  The implementation of an assurance certification process to validate and monitor the governance of each organisation to ensure that the arrangements in place are appropriate and remain so. 2930 Once implemented, the recommendations will:  Enable a definitive register of Government committees and quasi-autonomous entities to be published and reviewed at least annually;  Enhance existing governance arrangements for such organisations; and  Assist Departments in undertaking the reviews.

41. Failure to undertake due diligence on recruitment – Disciplinary sanctions on senior Government staff

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

What disciplinary sanctions are in place in respect of a failure on the part of senior staff members in a Department to undertake appropriate due diligence checks on prospective employees?

2935 The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): The recruitment of public servants is administered by the Office of Human Resources, which is responsible for undertaking relevant pre-employment checks on applicants. These vary depending on the nature of the post, but would include, amongst other things, identity checks, work permit status, disclosure and barring checks (also known as Police checks), Occupational Health status and references. 2940 These checks are in keeping with ‘Know your customer’ principles and good recruitment practice. There is no requirement for senior staff to undertake their own ‘due diligence’ checks on prospective employees, but they would be expected to declare any ‘conflict of interest’ during the recruitment process.

42. Public service staff – Figures for last three years

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

How many staff served in the public service broken down by (a) grade and (b) whether they are staff directly serving the public in each of the last three years?

______1884 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

2945 The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): I was surprised to see this Question requested orally, as it would generally be more appropriate for written response. With regard to part (a) of the Question, it would be impractical to provide numbers by grade as there are over 343 different grades within the public service. Information about pay bands was provided to members in relation to a similar question in December, and which is available 2950 from the Dark Blue book up to the year ending 31st March 2015. There is regrettably insufficient time to provide this for the year ending 31st March 2016, and in any case is unsuitable in oral form. I also regret that I am unable to provide the information requested in part (b) of the Question, as this data simply does not exist electronically and is in any case open to subjective 2955 interpretation. If the Hon. Member means customer facing this is no more possible, and it would be a disproportionate use of public funds to try to obtain such information from Departments, Boards and Offices.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

43. Fraudulent claims for Government assistance – Number during last five years

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

How many companies, directors, or persons associated with them have been identified as having made a fraudulent application for Government assistance from records kept in his Department in the last five years?

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): No companies, directors, or persons associated with them have been identified as having made fraudulent applications for 2960 Government assistance from records kept in the Department in the last five years. As I have made clear previously, if the Hon. Member is aware of any potential cases of fraudulent applications having been made I would be grateful to meet with him to discuss this.

44. Fraudulent claims for Government assistance – Prosecutions and funds recovered

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

How many prosecutions have been undertaken by his Department to recover money fraudulently claimed; and how much money has been recovered in the last five years?

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): The Department is unaware of any 2965 money which has been fraudulently claimed. Therefore no prosecutions have been undertaken to recover any such money in the last five years.

______1885 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

45. Visitor numbers – Effect of devaluation of the pound

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

What measures he is putting in place to enhance the number of visitors to the Island as a result of lowered costs because of the devaluation of the pound?

2970 The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): The Hon. Member is correct in identifying that the devaluation of sterling against major currencies has provided an opportunity to boost the number of leisure visitors to the Island. In 2015 some 288,000 visitors made the trip to the island for leisure and business purposes, an increase of 3.8% compared to 2014. The large majority of these visitors, (91%), came from 2975 the British Isles highlighting the importance of the UK domestic tourism market to the Island’s economy. Visit Britain estimates that the sharp rise in the cost of holidaying abroad is likely to lead to a 5% increase in the number of British residents deciding to holiday in the British Isles instead of international destinations during 2016. 2980 The Destination Management Plan (2016-2020) launched earlier this year recognises the potential to grow the number of UK families, couples and individuals taking domestic short breaks in the British Isles and strategies are already in place to grow this key market. In order to capitalise on what has been termed the ‘devaluation staycation’ opportunity the Department is increasing its focus in attracting additional visitors. This includes a range of 2985 activities:  Firstly, engaging with major airlines and the Steam Packet Company in jointly promoting the Island as an ideal leisure holiday destination for the UK market;  Secondly, embarking on a comprehensive multi-platform marketing campaign, targeting key travel segments within the UK; 2990  Also focusing our PR activity on key UK media to raise awareness of the fact that the Island is indeed an ideal ‘staycation’ destination. By way of illustration, on 30th June The Sun newspaper voted Port Erin one of the top 12 ‘staycation’ destinations in the British Isles. I am pleased to note that the numbers of leisure visitors has grown by 28% over the last 2995 three years and believe we can continue to grow this important part of our diverse economy.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

46. Medical consultants – Full-time working hours

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

How many hours consultants need to work in order to be considered full time?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): The Department of Health and Social Care determines full-time hours in accordance with UK NHS terms and conditions which set out that a standard full-time Job Plan for a medical consultant will contain ten Programmed Activities each of which will have a timetable value of four hours. A standard full-time contract is 3000 therefore 40 hours per week.

______1886 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

47. Medical consultants – Overtime

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

How much overtime was done by each grade of consultant in the last 12 months?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): There is single grade for consultants. Consultants may be contracted to work more or less than the standard 40-hour week if agreed with their management during the job planning process. It would require scrutiny of individual records to determine how many hours in excess of 3005 contracted hours have been worked in a period. However, the Government’s HR management system records payment for hours worked in excess of the contracted hours as overtime and it is possible to estimate the number of such hours worked by dividing the cash value by the current plain-time rate. Ten consultants worked overtime in the year ending 30th June 2016. They worked 3010 approximately 2,684 hours in total or an average 268 hours each for the period in question.

48. Waiting times – Per medical speciality in last month

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

What the waiting times were for each of the medical specialities including general physician in the last month?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle):

Waiting List Activity (including Ramsey) as at end: May-16

Inpatients (excluding patients suspended and planned) Total Patients Waiting by Month Total Division Waiting 0-2 3-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24+ Surgical Division Breast Surgery 55 37 5 5 3 5 Colorectal Surgery 393 175 82 89 34 12 1 ENT 215 65 49 64 36 1 General Surgery 344 198 84 40 19 3 Ophthalmology 238 121 46 44 25 2 Oral Surgery 120 61 21 28 8 2 Orthopaedic Surgery 633 245 140 166 74 8 Paediatric ENT 35 29 6 Paediatric General Surgery 4 2 2 Paediatric Ophthalmology 1 1 Paediatric Oral Surgery 36 25 8 3 ______1887 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Paediatric Urology 3 2 1 Pain Management 99 45 26 23 3 2 Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery 121 67 28 24 2 Urology 82 65 2 15 Vascular Surgery 18 8 4 3 2 1

Total Surgical Division 2,397 1,143 505 506 206 26 11 Women / Children’s Division Gynaecology 55 49 5 1

Total Women/Children’s Division 55 49 5 1 0 0 0 Medical Division Cardiology 31 14 4 12 1 General Medicine (endoscopy only) * 433 140 100 123 52 15 3

Total Medical Division 485 154 104 135 53 15 24

Total Inpatients 2,937 1,346 614 642 259 41 35

* Recent cancer referral guidelines have changed which has seen a steep rise in patients referred for endoscopy.

Outpatient Waiting List Activity (including Ramsey) as at 8th July 2016 Outpatients (including patients with appointments) Total Patients Waiting by Month

Division Total Waiting 0-2 3-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24+ Surgical Division Breast Surgery 93 83 7 3 ENT 445 354 88 3 General Surgery 427 336 56 25 9 1 Ophthalmology 1,099 524 210 187 100 62 16 Oral Surgery 1,023 333 228 376 28 8 50 Orthodontics 6 6 Orthopaedic Surgery 762 567 163 21 5 5 1 Paediatric Ophthalmology 77 43 19 8 5 2 Paediatric Oral Surgery 1 1 Paediatric Orthopaedics 44 25 16 2 1 Pain Management 353 81 63 74 44 52 39 Plastic Surgery 61 23 20 9 3 6 Restorative Dentistry 15 4 2 9 Thoracic Surgery 12 5 2 2 2 1 Urology 241 183 41 7 6 1 3 Total Surgical Division 4,659 2,568 913 726 203 132 117

______1888 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Women / Children’s Division Colposcopy 13 12 1 Fertility 60 28 22 8 2 Gynaecology 130 119 8 3 Obstetrics 135 135 Paediatrics 140 137 3 Paediatric Neurology 8 8 Urogynae 24 23 1

Total Women/Children’s Division 510 462 35 11 2 0 0 Medical / Elderly Division Cardiology 0 DATA NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE Due to a technical issue Dermatology 733 191 120 198 153 55 16 Diabetic Medicine 125 39 18 36 20 11 1 Endocrinology 240 48 25 44 35 33 55 Gastroenterology 226 142 51 26 4 2 1 General Medicine 250 145 41 11 6 47 Nephrology 36 27 9 Neurology 243 87 83 66 4 3 Respiratory Medicine 142 75 8 9 16 20 14 Clinical Physiology 100 26 28 45 1 Rheumatology 112 67 21 16 7 1 Total Medical Division 2,207 847 404 451 246 124 135 Total Outpatients 7,376 3,877 1,352 1,188 451 256 252

CHIEF MINISTER

49. Manx Electricity Authority loan – Role and contribution of legal advisers

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister:

What consideration has been given to the role and contribution of the relevant legal advisers in relation to the MEA loan and the extent to which they can be held responsible?

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): In 2005, this Hon. Court approved the creation of a select committee to investigate the Manx Electricity Authority’s actions in relation to the MEA 3015 borrowings. That Committee issued two interim reports during this time. Its final report and recommendations were moved in Tynwald in February 2013, where they were debated at considerable length. I am not sure what else can be added to the subject at this time.

______1889 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

TREASURY

50. Powerhouse Insurance Limited – Report from Financial Services Authority

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Pursuant to his Statement in Tynwald on 22nd June that the Financial Supervision Authority would report to him on Powerhouse Insurance Limited, whether he has received the Report and, if so, what it says?

3020 The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): I have not yet received the report of the Financial Services Authority in respect of Powerhouse Insurance Limited as the report is not due to be submitted to the Treasury until 30th June 2017. To assist the Court, the following is an extract to the 22nd June Tynwald debate in which I stated:

I have been assured that Treasury will be provided with an update on the status of the review on or before 31st December 2016, with a commitment by the Authority to provide me with a Report on or before 30th June 2017 which, if required, will set a roadmap for any further work required with appropriate timescales. The Report will address the following questions: did the IPA have sufficient powers to satisfy their regulatory objectives over the relevant period? And, in the context of those powers and the information before it at the time, did the IPA act appropriately?

51. Public expenditure in coming financial years – Ring-fencing

3025 The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What public expenditure is ring-fenced in coming financial years?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): As a rule, Government does not ring-fence public expenditure for future financial years. The Budget for all areas of Government is subject to annual review when the Budget is considered by Tynwald each year. 3030 Following this Court’s consideration in March 2014 of the Report of Select Committee on Public Service Broadcasting, however, there has been a commitment to fund Manx Radio an annual amount of £850,000 as of 2014-15, with any future funding subject to a periodic review. Government’s internal reserves are also earmarked for specific expenditure purposes, in accordance with the terms of reference for each fund.

52. Benefit fraud – Cost to employ two inspectors

3035 The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

How much it will cost per annum to employ two full-time inspectors to support efforts to prevent benefit cheats claiming taxpayers’ money to which they are not entitled?

______1890 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): The exact cost will depend upon the experience and current status of those persons ultimately appointed to these fixed term posts. However, I can confirm that it would be between £70,000 and £92,000 per annum. 3040 These figures take account of employer’s National Insurance contributions and employer’s pension contributions. Given that benefit fraud in the Island topped £1 million in the last financial year, I hope Hon. Members will agree with me that further investment to support efforts to prevent benefit cheats claiming taxpayers’ money to which they are not entitled is very much warranted.

POLICY AND REFORM

53. Conflicts of interest of senior Government staff – Safeguarding public funds

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

What plans he has to investigate and report to the next Tynwald on safeguarding of the public purse from conflicts of interest of senior staff, local agencies, and former senior staff who are serving as directors of private companies with a direct interest in the areas of their previous employment in Government? 3045 The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): There are existing safeguards to cover both conflicts of interest of existing and post-occupation employment of senior staff. Conflicts of interest are covered by the Code of Conduct for Public Servants which outlines the standards of behaviour that are expected of all public servants. The Code states (inter alia) 3050 that public servants should not seek to influence others or be influenced, take decisions or misuse their position to further their private interests or those of others. Existing civil servants are not permitted to take up secondary occupations without the approval of the relevant Accounting Officer. In addition, senior civil servants are not permitted to accept any post-employment occupation within a period of one year after ceasing to be a civil 3055 servant without the prior written approval of the Public Services Commission.

54. Public service management posts – Increase in last three years

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:

What increase there has been in management posts in the public service broken down by grade and salary band in each of the last three years?

The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): As there is no central record of the number of employees with management responsibilities and the number without, it would be necessary to research this information within each part of Government from manual records. 3060 I regret that I am unable to supply the requested information which would require a disproportionate diversion of staff time and public funds in order to provide a meaningful response.

______1891 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

55. Vision Nine – Contract signing

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Malarkey) to ask the Minister for Economic 3065 Development:

Whether the contract with Vision Nine has been signed?

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Since Tynwald agreed at its April sitting to award the Promoter Agreement for the TT and Classic TT to Vision Nine, work has been ongoing to finalise what is a very complex document. This work is continuing with co-operation from Vision Nine with the aim on both sides to conclude the agreement as soon as possible.

56. Department of Economic Development – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted

3070 The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

What in the past five years was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department?

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): I thank the Hon. Member for his Question. All Governments must be prepared to strive to improve their performance and challenge themselves honestly about where they have made mistakes and what they can do to learn from those mistakes and improve in future. 3075 Speaking for my own Department, it is very subjective what any person might consider the ‘biggest waste of money’ to quote the Hon. Member. More broadly, in the past five years the Department has implemented major new IT systems and other changes that have delivered improvements in customer service and efficiency worth £100,000s annually while also growing our net revenues for our Registries by over £3 million 3080 annually. As a result, we have been able to maintain our support for the Island’s diverse economy while reducing the cost to the taxpayer. The Department’s actual net Revenue expenditure for 2015-16 was £1.5 million against a budget of £5 million, a valuable saving of £3.5 million at a time when we are all working hard in Government to balance the budget. I therefore believe we have made real progress and are providing good value for money 3085 overall.

57. DED budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

What plans he has for spending taxpayers’ money in his Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved, and whether those items of expenditure have been subject to the scrutiny and approval of Tynwald?

______1892 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Tynwald approved the 2016-17 Budget in February 2016. There are no plans for the Department to spend any money that requires the additional approval of Tynwald during the period in which the House of Keys is dissolved.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

59. Meetings with families – Scheduling

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

Whether it is the practice of staff within the Department: (a) to schedule meetings with families without consulting them on their availability; and (b) where families cannot attend such meetings because of other obligations, to proceed with their meeting without them? 3090 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): The procedure followed by the Department has at its heart the recognition that children, young people, their parents, carers and other family members all have relevant contributions to make to child protection conferences, reviews for children in care and other meetings. 3095 The procedure is that parents or carers with Parental Responsibility will routinely be invited to such meetings unless the criteria for exclusion are met, and will be helped in any way possible to contribute fully to it. This may include provision of child care, transport to and from the meeting, and provision of an interpreter if required. The meetings are routinely scheduled during the working day but are often re-arranged if 3100 requested by a parent or a child or young person. For the 2015-16 year just gone, data scrutinised by the Safeguarding Children Board indicates that:  100% invitations for child protection conferences went to parents.  In 93% of cases at least one parent attended, 3105  5% of parents asked for the meeting to be rescheduled and those requests were complied with.  70% of children/young people eligible to attend and contribute did so, supported independently by the children’s rights champion. For looked after children: 3110  65% of parents attended and in all cases where they did not it was for a valid reason.  92% of eligible children and young people attended and contributed to their review. The Department has a very active and successful Council of Children in Care – the Voices in Participation Council (VIP). They set exacting standards for the Department and we have risen to their challenge. 3115 In the past six months the Department has also introduced a far more interactive approach to case conferences known as ‘Signs of Safety’ approach which enables families to find their own safe solutions to child protection issues where the child or perpetrator stay in the family. The Department encourages feedback from families and children and last year 66% of families said that the conference/review was good or better than they expected. 3120 It would be naïve of me to suggest there are no problems and if the Hon. Member has any individual constituent in mind he should advise them to submit a formal complaint so that it can be investigated. However, our overall performance I believe, supported by the Scottish Care Inspectorate in their review of progress earlier this year, is improving, and this should be seen as a positive move in the right direction.

______1893 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

60. Recruitment of DHSC staff – Due diligence performed

3125 The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

What due diligence is performed on prospective members of staff in the Department, with particular reference to past employment history and performance?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Pre-employment checks on prospective members of staff of the Department of Health and Social Care vary depending on the staff group and nature of the role being offered. Checks typically comprise the collection of references (which would include previous work 3130 history), medical checks, checks of Isle of Man Worker status, immigration status and visa requirements, as appropriate. In respect of medical staff, three references are requested and the candidate must supply a previous appraisal document and an appraisal and revalidation declaration form. Checks are also carried out on the registration status of all professionals who are legally 3135 required to be registered with a professional body in order to practice, such as, for example, the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Checks of identification are required for all employees and where specific qualifications have been identified as being essential, original certificates are required to be produced. In addition the Department has a number of staff groups which may require police checks 3140 because they will be working with vulnerable people or have access to controlled drugs. These checks are role specific and subject to the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 and conditions imposed by the UK Disclosure and Barring Service.

TREASURY

61. Benefit fraud – Record level for last financial year

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Whether in the last financial year a record level of benefit fraud was identified and the sum of money misappropriated was more than £700,000?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): I thank the Hon. Member for his Question and can confirm that was indeed the case. 3145 In addition to the £708,000 of benefit overpayments identified, £407,000 in benefit overpayments was avoided through the interventions of Social Security’s Inspectorate.

62. Peel and St John’s regional sewage works – Whole life costing and costs comparison

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

______1894 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

If he will conduct a 70-year whole of life costing and comparison of the remaining regional sewage provision west, namely Peel and St John’s regional sewage works, against a pipeline link from Peel to Crosby and the IRIS network and report to the October sitting of Tynwald?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): I would refer the Hon. Member to previous answers to similar Questions raised by him. It is not possible to provide whole life costings and comparisons whilst feasible site locations have not yet been determined and design activities 3150 not progressed to the point at which accurate capital and operating costs can be determined which along with other costs such as land procurement and professional fees will be used to determine the whole life cost of the options being considered. It is therefore neither practical nor appropriate to perform a financial analysis of the options available at this time. A financial modelling exercise over a 70-year period as suggested is in any 3155 case unreliable given the length of time period and the uncertainty surrounding the financial assumptions so far into the future. It is a requirement for all capital scheme proposals, including regional sewage treatment provision works, to be appraised in line with Government’s established Capital Procedures, and this includes the use of detailed option appraisals.

63. Proposed £50 million Isle of Man bonds – Public interest

3160 The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Quirk) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What assessment he has made of public interest in the proposed £50 million Isle of Man bonds; and when they will be available?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Treasury believes from feedback received at meetings held before the Budget, from comment received since the Budget and from actual enquiries received there is considerable public interest. 3165 Treasury is, with the assistance of Procurement Services, putting together a Prior Information Notice to commence the process for the appointment of an agent to manage the process. The timing of the availability will depend upon the completion and outcome of this process.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

64. Family meetings with DHSC – Making recordings

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

Further to his statement of 10th May 2016, whether families are entitled to make their own recordings of meetings with representatives of the Department?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): My Department has made further 3170 inquiries into the matter of recording meetings. The issue is not whether or not professionals wish to be recorded, but the security of the recorded information held by a parent or other person in the community.

______1895 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

In view of the services provided by the Children and Families Division, the meetings we are talking about are in fact the child’s, and the majority of information is therefore the child’s. We 3175 should remember that a child has rights of their own, which in some instances can be at odds with those of their parents. The nature of meetings about a child’s welfare, safety and protection is extremely sensitive. The child must be protected at all times, and this includes their information being protected from making them identifiable, or being used for illegal, abusive, or spurious purposes. 3180 If a parent or other member of the public was recording a meeting, that recording is classed under data protection to be for ‘domestic use’ and no restrictions in relation to distributing it can apply. My Department is of the professional view that such a risk is too high to take. As a result, we have been making inquiries about how recordings can be made and used by the Department as a registered data controller, so that we can protect that child’s information 3185 under the Data Protection Act. Our inquiries have included discussions with other jurisdictions and with the Police about how they also manage similar situations. I am confident we shall be able to introduce a procedure for the recording of meetings in the near future. Such a mechanism will assist with the accuracy of minutes and offer protection to all parties involved.

65. Family meetings with DHSC – Support person

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

Whether families are entitled to bring a support person of their choice to meetings with representatives of the Department and whether that support person can be an advocate or a worker from a third sector organisation?

3190 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Families are entitled to bring a support person of their choice to meetings and are most often advised to bring their legal advocate.

66. Department of Health and Social Care – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

What in the past five years was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): The Answer to this Question is bound to be subjective, and it is one on which there will be a range of views amongst Members and the public. 3195 However, I can assure the Hon. Member that my Department has been working hard over the past five years to achieve better value for the public’s money. The information which I gave to this Hon. Court only last month in respect of the Department’s financial position made it clear that we face serious challenges in delivering the health and care services which the Isle of Man community wants. We must make significant progress in improving our cost efficiency, and 3200 through that in playing our part in addressing the fiscal and financial challenges facing the Island.

______1896 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

TREASURY

67. Treasury – Details of taxpayers’ money wasted

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What in the past five years was the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in his Department?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): The Answer to this Question is bound to be 3205 subjective, and it is one on which there will be a range of views amongst members and the public. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that my Department has been working hard over the past five years to achieve better value for the public’s money. We have made significant progress in making savings and improving efficiency, and in playing our part in addressing the 3210 fiscal and financial challenges facing the Island.

68. Treasury budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What plans he has for spending taxpayers’ money in his Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved; and whether those items of expenditure have been subject to the scrutiny and approval of Tynwald?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Any expenditure incurred or committed by the Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved will relate to ongoing business under existing policies. The day to day operation of my Department will continue. 3215 Tynwald approved the 2016-17 Budget in February 2016.

69. Credit unions – Progress on amending legislation

The Hon. Member for Peel (Mr Harmer) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What progress has been made towards amending legislation for Credit Unions?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): I am pleased to advise the Court that following the Hon. Member’s motion at the February sitting, the Council of Ministers agreed for drafting time to be allocated to a Bill amending the existing legislation on Credit Unions. Significant progress has subsequently been made. The Financial Services Authority has 3220 considered a first draft of a new Bill and it expects to provide its feedback to the Legislative Drafter before the end of this month. Thereafter, the revised draft will form the basis of a public consultation, hopefully to take place later in the summer.

______1897 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Following consultation and consideration of any comments, the Authority aims to seek the Council of Ministers’ approval for the final Bill to be introduced into the Branches early in the 3225 new administration. This timetable should allow the new legislation to come into operation before the 2017 summer recess, thereby meeting the timeframe agreed by Tynwald when it last considered this important matter.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

70. DHSC budget – Plans for expenditure during dissolution

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

What plans he has for spending taxpayers’ money in his Department during the period the House of Keys is dissolved; and whether those items of expenditure have been subject to the scrutiny and approval of Tynwald?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Any expenditure incurred or 3230 committed by the Department during the period in which the House of Keys is dissolved will relate to on-going business under existing policies. The day-to-day operation of my Department will continue. Tynwald Court approved the 2016-17 Budget in February 2016.

71. Noble’s Hospital consultants – Workload and restrictions on private work

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

Whether consultants at Noble’s Hospital deal with the same workload and patients as their UK counterparts; and what restrictions there are on performance of private work?

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Information regarding consultant 3235 workload is not readily available and figures allowing us to compare the UK and the Isle of Man with any accuracy are not easy to establish. I would refer Hon. Members to an earlier Answer in which I said that consultants’ work is agreed through the job planning process, and that on average a consultant working fully for the Health Service is expected to do 40 hours per week. The Isle of Man follows similar practice to 3240 the UK with regard to the consultant contract, although there are variations one of which relates to private work, where we have no restriction on private practice earnings. The workload varies in different specialities and at different times of the year. In certain disciplines where there are vacancies or the consultant teams are either small or ‘single handed’ the workload is high. Overall the average number of contracted hours in job plans of our 3245 consultants is higher that of those in the UK. We do, however, have some evidence that the productivity of some consultants may be lower than that of UK counterparts. In addition, the number of changes to and cancellations by consultants of outpatient clinics seems to be significantly higher in Noble’s Hospital than in UK hospitals. Both of these factors are very much at the fore of our 2016 consultant job planning ______1898 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

3250 round, and I have asked my officers to ensure both that we understand fully what is going on and that the position is improved quickly.

TREASURY

72. Introduction of pension freedoms; current annuity provision – Statement

The Hon. Member for Peel (Mr Harmer) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

If he will make a statement on the introduction of pension freedoms and current annuity provision?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): I am conscious that this matter has been the subject of various questions and debate both in this Hon. Court and another place. Following my statement at the January sitting of this Court I subsequently announced in my 3255 Budget Speech that triviality would be increased to £50,000 as well as a reduction in the age on which triviality can be claimed from 60 to 55. Recently the Department of Economic Development has worked closely with the pensions industry on the Isle of Man to create a series of proposals to further extend pension freedoms. These proposals are currently with Treasury for consideration. 3260 The changes announced in the Budget were positive steps forward but as you will appreciate, the matter of pensions is complex and we must ensure that the outcomes are fair and that there are no unforeseen outcomes which harm either the individuals or Government revenue. Turning to the matter of annuities, the Department of Economic Development has recently been made aware of the difficulty of obtaining annuities in the Isle of Man and are investigating 3265 the matter to see if the issue is widespread and if anything can be done.

CHIEF MINISTER

73. Members’ international travel – Cost from public funds

The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Chief Minister:

What the cost was of all publicly funded international travel for each Tynwald Member in each of the last five years?

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): The cost of publicly funded international travel for each Tynwald Member over the last five financial years (April to March) is summarised in Table 73A below. The information has been compiled from data included in quarterly returns on Members’ 3270 travel provided by Departments and the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald. The information has not been audited or checked. International travel has been defined as travel outside the United Kingdom and Channel Islands.

______1899 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Table 73 A

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Member Name £ £ £ £ £ Hon J A Brown MHK 618.91 Hon J P Shimmin MHK 1029.00 1699.51 3510.50 Hon J P Watterson MHK 1359.57 5609.03 1395.00 5797.10 1095.89 Hon L D Skelly MHK 2543.64 519.12 699.59 Hon P A Gawne MHK 3922.68 8666.79 1182.78 2782.77 Hon R A Ronan MHK 486.72 506.94 Hon R H Quayle MHK 2650.00 1538.74 6684.69 Hon T M Crookall MLC 339.40 4322.80 Hon W E Teare MHK 618.91 6619.56 672.84 963.68 Mr A F Downie MLC 7998.31 4820.25 3199.70 Mr A L Cannan MHK 486.72 977.03 Mr C C Thomas MHK 486.72 614.24 Mr D C Cretney MHK 2480.54 Mr G D Cregeen MHK * 441.00 Mr L I Singer MHK 2601.43 7050.49 2424.02 Mr R P Braidwood MLC 1230.13 Mr T P Wild MLC 5478.26 Mr Z Hall MHK 486.72 Mrs K J Beecroft MHK 486.72 The Hon S C Rodan SHK 2316.89 2403.51 2536.26 1147.34 Mr D Anderson MHK 486.72 The Hon C M Christian MLC 1695.85 3341.22 Hon A R Bell MHK 458.16 3965.01 425.64 6136.79 Grand Total 16435.00 34326.57 28524.70 24175.89 30549.66

*Cancellation charge

3275 Tynwald Members undertaking parliamentary and governmental business off the Island are subject to the same regime for travel, accommodation and subsistence as civil servants. Such costs are not regarded as ‘expenses’. The following Table 73B is a further analysis including destinations.

Table 73B

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Member Name Destination £ £ £ £ £ Hon J A Brown MHK Tallinn, Estonia 618.91 Hon J A Brown MHK Total 618.91 China, Guangzhou & Hon J P Shimmin MHK Shanghai 3345.00 Dublin. Republic of Ireland 165.50 Malta 1029.00 Qatar & Dubai 1699.51 Hon J P Shimmin MHK Total 1029.00 1699.51 3510.50

______1900 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Member Name Destination £ £ £ £ £ Hon J P Watterson MHK BIC, Dublin 236.30 Budva, Montenegro 1476.47 Cameroon 2351.52 Cyprus 1095.89 Dublin 221.86 Dublin Ireland 19.06 Dublin. Republic of Ireland 241.06 Falkland Islands 5609.03 Geneva, Switzerland 901.41 Gibraltar 245.84 Romania 461.34 South Africa 1463.15 Vilnius, Lithuania 933.66 Hon J P Watterson MHK Total 1359.57 5609.03 1395.00 5797.10 1095.89 Hon L D Skelly MHK Dublin 519.12 Dublin Engagement Meetings 417.10 France 282.49 USA 2543.64 Hon L D Skelly MHK Total 2543.64 519.12 699.59 Hon P A Gawne MHK Faroe Islands 966.56 Freetown, Sierra Leone 1502.75 Ivory Coast 1182.78 Nairobi 1462.92 Norwegian Petroleum Directorate 618.45 Sierra Leone 3922.68 4734.56 2164.32 Hon P A Gawne MHK Total 3922.68 8666.79 1182.78 2782.77 Hon R A Ronan MHK Dublin 486.72 Gibraltar 506.94 Hon R A Ronan MHK Total 486.72 506.94

Hon R H Quayle MHK Dublin 486.72 Dublin, BIC 391.47 Madrid & Valencia, Spain 1052.02 Monaco 1700.00 New Zealand 6293.22 Paris France 950.00 Hon R H Quayle MHK Total 2650.00 1538.74 6684.69 Hon T M Crookall MLC Brussels 339.40 Cyprus 812.33 Los Angeles Special Olympics 3510.47 Hon T M Crookall MLC Total 339.40 4322.80 ______1901 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Member Name Destination £ £ £ £ £ Hon W E Teare MHK Berlin & London 672.84 Dunkirk commemoration / Brussels engagement mtgs / London engagement mtg 963.68 Japan 4632.12 Qatar 1987.44 Tallinn, Estonia 618.91 Hon W E Teare MHK Total 618.91 6619.56 672.84 963.68 Mr A F Downie MLC Barcelona, Spain 969.00 British Virgin Islands 1792.94 Monaco Boat Show 1173.27 Paris 754.25 Paris, France 1860.10 South Africa 3199.70 Washing Dulles, Virginia, USA 3172.00 Washington, USA 3097.00 Mr A F Downie MLC Total 7998.31 4820.25 3199.70 Mr A L Cannan MHK Cyprus 977.03 Dublin 486.72 Mr A L Cannan MHK Total 486.72 977.03 Mr C C Thomas MHK Cyprus 614.24 Dublin 486.72 Mr C C Thomas MHK Total 486.72 614.24 Mr D C Cretney MHK Cameroon 2480.54 Mr D C Cretney MHK Total 2480.54 Cameroon-cancellation Mr G D Cregeen MHK cost 441.00 Mr G D Cregeen MHK Total 441.00 Mr L I Singer MHK Israel 2352.29 2424.02 South Africa 2601.43 Strasbourg, France 4698.20 Mr L I Singer MHK Total 2601.43 7050.49 2424.02 Mr R P Braidwood MLC Sri Lanka 1230.13 Mr R P Braidwood MLC Total 1230.13 Mr T P Wild MLC Falkland Islands 5478.26 Mr T P Wild MLC Total 5478.26 Mr Z Hall MHK Dublin 486.72 Mr Z Hall MHK Total 486.72 Mrs K J Beecroft MHK Dublin 486.72 Mrs K J Beecroft MHK Total 486.72 The Hon S C Rodan SHK Cork, Ireland 915.61 Dublin 1383.94 1147.34

______1902 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Member Name Destination £ £ £ £ £ New Zealand 2536.26 Sri Lanka 1019.57 Trinidad & Tobago 1401.28 The Hon S C Rodan SHK Total 2316.89 2403.51 2536.26 1147.34 Mr D Anderson MHK Dublin 486.72 Mr D Anderson MHK Total 486.72 The Hon C M Christian MLC Malaysia 3341.22 Trinidad & Tobago 1695.85 The Hon C M Christian MLC Total 1695.85 3341.22 Hon A R Bell MHK BIC, Dublin 236.30 Brussels 425.64 Brussels engagement mtgs / London engagement mtg 763.12 China 3965.01 Dublin 221.86 Dublin Engagement Meetings 417.10 Dublin, BIC 391.47 Shanghai & Beijing 4565.10 Hon A R Bell MHK Total 458.16 3965.01 425.64 6136.79 Grand Total 16435.00 34326.57 28524.70 24175.89 30549.66

74. Swearing-in of Lieutenant-Governor – Castle Rushen for future

The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Chief Minister:

If he will give a commitment that future swearing-in of the Lieutenant-Governor will be carried out at Castle Rushen?

3280 The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Arrangements regarding the swearing-in of the Lieutenant- Governor are determined by the Swearing Committee. Consequently any such commitment is not mine to give.

TREASURY

75. Resident companies – Taxable income 2014-15

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

______1903 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

What the total amount of the taxable incomes was of the companies resident in the Isle of Man for the purposes of Manx income tax which were (a) partly owned and (b) wholly owned by individual persons residing in the Isle of Man for the income tax year of assessment 2014- 15; and how many such companies there were?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): The data requested by the Hon. Member for the 2014-15 tax year is set out in the table below: 3285 No. of companies Total income (£) Wholly resident owned 6,971 632,723,548 Partly resident owned 714 592,707,684 Total 7,685 1,225,431,232

A distribution from taxable income to an Isle of Man resident individual will be liable to income tax.

76. Personal pensions – Tax-free cash element

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Whether a Manx resident who has saved from their earnings for most of their life into a personal pension in the UK will be taxed by the Isle of Man tax office on the tax free cash element of their pension when another Manx resident who has worked for a large UK company who may never have contributed, or contributed very little will receive their tax free cash from their UK occupational pension scheme without Manx taxation?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Section 44B of the Income Tax Act 1970 sets out 3290 the types of Isle of Man pension schemes where lump sum payments made on retirement from an office or employment or otherwise shall not be chargeable to Isle of Man Income Tax. UK approved pension schemes are not covered by this section of the Act and therefore lump sums paid from all UK approved pension schemes are strictly subject to Isle of Man income tax. However, following representation from the pensions industry that it was widely assumed 3295 that lump sum payments from UK occupational pension schemes in particular were tax free both here and in the UK, and subsequent discussion with members of the Tax Liaison Committee and the Association of Pension Scheme Providers, the issue was referred to Treasury. Treasury agreed that when a suitable opportunity arose legislation should be presented to Tynwald to extend the exception in section 44B to lump sum payments made on retirement from an office 3300 or employment or otherwise paid from foreign occupational schemes only, subject to certain conditions. Given the historic position it was also agreed that it would be inequitable to now pursue income tax on ‘tax free’ lump sums from UK occupational schemes pending the anticipated changes to section 44B. The rationale for limiting the proposed exemption to foreign occupational schemes is that 3305 private foreign pensions can already be transferred to Isle of Man schemes and potentially fall within section 44B. This option is generally unavailable for those in foreign occupational pension schemes. In addition, the proposed changes to section 44B would bring the Isle of Man in line with the position in Jersey and Guernsey. Proposed legislation on this subject has not yet been presented to Tynwald as it is closely 3310 linked to the work that is being undertaken on pensions freedoms.

______1904 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

In summary, Manx residents who have either UK personal pension schemes or UK occupational pension schemes have options under which they can access their UK pension commencement lump sums without them being subject to Isle of Man income tax.

77. UK defined benefit pension schemes – Advice on transfer options

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Whether a Manx resident who has a UK defined benefit scheme requires a UK adviser to advise them on the suitability of transfer options of their plan?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): A law was introduced in the UK in 2015 to 3315 safeguard the interests of members of defined benefit schemes seeking to take advantage of the new pension freedoms. Where a member requests a transfer in respect of defined benefits in excess of £30,000 and the transfer is to a defined contribution arrangement there is a requirement that the member seeks appropriate independent financial advice irrespective of residency. 3320 Appropriate independent financial advice is advice on the suitability of transfer options and must be provided by a UK regulated adviser.

78. New personal pension schemes – Manx self-invested personal pensions

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Whether anyone who would like to invest into a new personal pension scheme must opt for a Manx self-invested personal pension?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Where a person wishes to obtain tax relief through the Isle of Man the scheme that they join must be one approved by Treasury. Approval requires that certain conditions are met. 3325 Those conditions are that the scheme must agree to comply with Isle of Man tax law and a locally accountable administrator be appointed to take responsibility for compliance. So whilst residents have freedom of access to join any arrangement on offer in the global market place, they would not generally join an arrangement that is not approved by Treasury as there would be no tax incentive for them to do so. 3330 Whilst Treasury has approved self-invested personal pension schemes, other types of scheme are available in the market.

79. Personal Income Tax – Details for 2014-15

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

______1905 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

For comparison with information provided on 8th March 2016, what the 2014-15 tax year profiles were (broken down by total income, number of taxpayers, effective tax rate, tax raised, percentage of total individual tax raised) for individual and jointly assessed taxpayers further broken down into four income quartiles: (a) below personal allowance threshold; (b) above personal allowance threshold and within 10% band only; (c) above personal allowance threshold and within both 10% and 20% bands; and (d) tax cap cases?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): For the purposes of this answer the data provided is drawn from the tax year ended 5th April 2015 (2014-15 tax year) being the most complete set of information available to the Assessor of Income Tax based upon notices of assessment issued. 3335 Details for the previous tax year as published on 8th March 2016 are shown in italics/brackets.

Single/Independently Assessed Number Effective Percentage Total Income of Tax Assessed Tax Rate of Total Tax Taxpayers (%) Assessed Below 84,207,160 13,645 Personal 0 0.00 0.00 (88,878,667) (13,606) Allowances

191,736,285 12,177 6,196,357 3.23 3.66 10% Band (184,616,950) (11,778) (6,013,875) (3.26) (3.56)

10/20% 634,367,159 15,671 73,524,175 11.59 43.47 Band (620,661,010) (15,533) (70,612,106) (11.38) (41.80)

910,310,604 41,493 79,720,532 (894,156,627) (40,917) (76,625,981)

Jointly Assessed Couples Effective Percentage Number of Total Income Tax Assessed Tax Rate of Total Tax Taxpayers (%) Assessed Below 30,907,751 3,468 Personal 0 0.00 0.00 (35,530,038) (3,804) Allowances

154,055,185 9,674 4,959,439 3.21 2.93 10% Band (156,872,488) (9,696) (5,013,102) (3.20) (2.97)

10/20% 676,266,235 16,644 77,148,330 11.41 45.61 Band (671,609,942) (16,748) (76,737,350) (11.43) (45.42) 861,229,171 29,786 82,107,769 (864,012,468) (30,248) (81,750,452)

______1906 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Tax Cap Effective Percentage Number of Total Income Tax Assessed Tax Rate of Total Tax Taxpayers (%) Assessed

245,957,554 61 7,320,000 2.98 4.33 (521,525,5391) (88) (10,560,000) (2.02) (6.25)

1 As stated in the response published on 8th March 2016, there was a distorting factor which resulted in a significant increase in this figure for the 2013-14 tax year. It was stated that it was anticipated that, in future years, the amount would return to a similar level to that stated in earlier data.

The average effective tax rate for all resident taxpayers in the 2014-15 tax year was 8.38% (2013-14 tax year – 7.41%). I would also take this opportunity of reiterating the additional points that have accompanied 3340 previous publications of this data as follows:  The level of personal allowances and therefore the point at which tax becomes payable can vary dependant on the circumstances of an individual as they may be entitled to additional allowances such as Age, Blind or Additional Personal allowance for single parents. These allowances have been taken into account in the ‘Below Personal 3345 Allowances’ data.  The ‘Total Income’ figure does not take into account any deductions or reliefs such as pension scheme contributions or mortgage interest paid. However, in the case of self- employed individuals and recipients of rental income any expenses directly incurred in acquiring such income have already been deducted in arriving at this figure. 3350  Non-taxable income sources such as various Social Security benefits including Employed Person’s Allowance and Attendance Allowance are not included.  All resident individuals are required to declare their total worldwide income to the Assessor of Income Tax. However, in certain circumstances, a credit is given if tax has already been paid in another jurisdiction. Where such a credit has been given it is 3355 excluded from the ‘Tax Assessed’ figure in the table above.  No data is included in respect of those individuals who are not required to submit an annual tax return on the grounds that the Assessor is satisfied their income is consistently below the personal allowance thresholds. In the 2014-15 tax year, 1,169 people (853 individuals and 158 jointly assessed couples) were not required to submit a 3360 tax return for this reason.  The income data and liabilities of any individuals or jointly assessed couples in excess of the Tax Cap election amount are included in the relevant tables.  The effective rate of tax for Tax Caps cannot reflect the significant contribution that those individuals make to our economy which extends much wider than the amount of 3365 income tax that they actually pay.

80. Final Expenditure Revenue Sharing Arrangement (FERSA) – Publication of document

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

If he will publish the document describing how the Final Expenditure Revenue Sharing Arrangement will work in practice?

______1907 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): I made clear in my statement to Tynwald in March of this year that work will commence on a separate stand-alone document describing how FERSA will work in practice, which, once agreed with Her Majesty’s Treasury, will be made public. 3370 Currently other pressing matters regard both the United Kingdom’s revenue sharing arrangements with Scotland and the vote to exit the European Union are taking precedence; however, I can confirm it remains the case that such stand-alone document, once agreed with Her Majesty’s Treasury, will be made public.

81. Income support 2015-16 – Age of recipients

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Malarkey) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

How many people claiming income support in 2015-16 were aged: (a) 60-75; and (b) 75 plus?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): During the 2015-16 financial year a total of: 3375 • 1,082 people aged between 60 and 74; and • 1,273 people aged 75 or over received Income Support. However, not all of these received Income Support throughout that year. Taking a snapshot at 31st March 2016, being the end of the 2015-16 financial year: 3380 • 821 people aged between 60 and 74; and • 925 people aged 75 or over were receiving Income Support.

82. Disposal of publicly owned properties – Safeguards

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What safeguards are in place to make sure that any disposals of publicly owned properties are open and transparent?

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): The disposal of Government properties is subject to the provisions of the Financial Regulations, in particular FD29 which deals specifically with the 3385 process for disposal of such assets. Only in exceptional circumstances are properties not subject to open competition and marketing and all disposal transactions require the approval of Treasury. Any agents utilised in the disposal of Government Assets are employed following an open tender process and are required to openly market property and retain records of all parties 3390 expressing an interest. I enclose a copy of FD29 for your information:

______1908 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

ISLE OF MAN GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REGULATIONS

April 2016

FD29–LAND ACQUISITION & DISPOSAL

1. Each Department shall comply with the relevant provisions of Schedule 1 and 2 of the Government Departments Act 1987 relating to the acquisition and disposal of property. Departments may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property and accept any gift, devise or bequest of real or personal property. Departments may not dispose of land without the consent of the Treasury.

2. Each Statutory Board shall comply with the relevant provisions of Schedule 2 of the Statutory Boards Act 1987. Statutory Boards shall not dispose of land without the consent of the Treasury except in circumstances set out in paragraph 6(4) and 6(5) of Schedule 2 of the Statutory Boards Act 1987.

3. All other designated bodies should also seek Treasury’s guidance.

Acquisition

4. All freehold and leasehold acquisitions of land and buildings except for internal Government transactions and subject to paragraph 12 below should be at Market Value (MV) or Market Rent (MR), defined in the RICS Valuation Standards as:

a) Market Value: The estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the properties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

b) Market Rent: The estimated amount for which a property, or space within a property, should lease on the date of valuation between a willing lessor and a willing lessee on appropriate lease terms, in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

5. The above will be subject to any onerous conditions imposed by the acquiring Department or Statutory Board or other designated body.

6. The above does not apply to compulsory or voluntary acquisition of land subject to compulsory purchase. Designated bodies should seek advice in relation to such acquisitions from the Attorney General’s Chambers at as early a stage as possible.

7. If there are exceptional circumstances, it should be formally recorded that the Board or Minister has authorised acquisition at above Market Value or Market Rent and prior written approval from Treasury must be sought for such a course of action.

Disposal

8. Designated bodies shall comply with the Council of Ministers’ policy for the disposal of land which is set out in paragraph 12 below. For the purpose of this direction, disposal means sales or grant of an option for sale and lettings over 21 years. Treasury approval of the chosen method of disposal must be sought in advance of negotiations if the disposal is not by open market sale.

9. The policy on the disposal of land does not apply to any letting for a term of 21 years or less. Refer to 15 & 16 below and FD12 - Asset Management.

10. After obtaining confirmation from Departments or Statutory Boards as to interest in the land or property being considered for disposal (see 12 below), the Strategic Asset Management Unit, Treasury should be informed of the outcome and its view should be included in the request for Treasury approval.

11. Unless prior written approval from Treasury is given, designated bodies must only dispose of land to the legal entity from which consideration will be paid or supplied. The legal entity must be the same as which Treasury approval has been obtained.

12. Council of Ministers’ Policy on the Disposal of Government Land is set out below:

______1909 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

a) All sales or long term letting (over 21 years) to bodies outside Government should generally be at the prevailing market value

b) Property which is for sale by Government Departments or Statutory Bodies should be publicly advertised and be subject to open sale, tender or auction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. In such exceptional circumstances it should be formally minuted that the Board or Minister has authorised that an alternative method of disposal can be adopted, and that Treasury has approved such a course of action prior to negotiations reaching an advanced stage;

c) Where property is to be publicly advertised and be subject to open sale, tender or auction, a written contract should be drawn up with the successful agent which sets out the commission to be charged, the method of marketing to be used and the requirement for the agent to retain sufficient documentation to record those persons or bodies who have been contacted or expressed an interest;

d) Departments or Statutory Boards are to confirm that other Government bodies have no interest in acquiring the land to be sold;

e) Sales between Government Departments and/or Statutory Boards will generally be at market value where a change of use of the land is proposed and for a nominal sum where there will be no change of use, or for such other amount approved by the Treasury. In every case, Treasury approval to the sale is required;

f) Sales from Government Departments or Statutory Boards to Local Authorities are to be at a sum approved by the Treasury;

g) Government Valuer is to provide market valuations in respect of sales & lettings.

13. Treasury may approve cases which comply with conditions a) to g). If this policy cannot be fully complied with, the approval of Treasury and Tynwald must be obtained to the disposal unless the selling price/value of lease is less than £100,000 in which case Treasury approval only is required.

14. Sales of properties under the provisions of the House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2007 are exempt from conditions 1 to 11.

Leases

15. Designated bodies must seek and obtain the advice of the Government Valuer and the Attorney General’s Chambers when entering into lease arrangements for land and property either as lessor or lessee.

16. Where designated bodies are entering into lease arrangements for land or property as lessor and: a. the aggregated lease value over 3 years is £75,000 or more; or

b. it is intended that that the lessee would provide a service for or on behalf of the designated body within the scope of the lease;

then they must seek a direction from the Financial Controller as to whether or not FD8 applies.

HM ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL

83. Immigration Tribunals – Legal aid for those suffering domestic abuse

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask HM Acting Attorney General:

What plans he has to introduce legal aid for those before Immigration Tribunals who are suffering from domestic abuse?

The Acting Attorney General: Legal Aid is not available to any person seeking immigration status before the Immigration Tribunal or on appeal therefrom.

______1910 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The proceedings for which Civil Legal Aid may be given are set out in Schedule 1 to the Legal 3395 Aid Act 1986. To extend Legal Aid to proceedings before the Immigration Tribunal would require an amendment to the Act and to the regulations issued under that Act. Any such amendments are matters for the Treasury to consider and promote. It is not in my gift as HM Acting Attorney General to make or seek to introduce changes to 3400 Legal Aid. In general terms, a person who is suffering or claims to be suffering from domestic abuse has civil rights which can be pursued outwith the immigration process and Legal Aid would be available in respect of those civil rights if the person concerned was eligible.

84. Reports provided to judges – Unedited versions for child care and other cases

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask HM Acting Attorney General:

If he will instruct Departments to give the full reports, not edited versions to judges who are dealing with (a) child care cases; and (b) other cases?

The Acting Attorney General: The conduct of cases before the court is a matter for the judiciary. It is for the presiding judge to direct the parties to the proceedings as to the reports 3405 produced to the court. ‘Reports’ are by their nature and purpose summaries of the information held by the person (body) that produces the report. If a report contains ‘redacted’ sections then the court can question the need for the redaction and the reasons behind them. The court would manage that issue. 3410 Otherwise, I am not aware of any practice whereby the court is not given full reports and instead are provided with an edited version. In child care cases, the situation does arise quite frequently that redactions to a report are necessary and justifiable, for example, so as to protect the privacy of third parties and for reasons of data protection. In these circumstances the court will be aware of the redactions 3415 made and can question the reasoning and could order the full unredacted report to be provided to it and if the court considered it necessary to all parties to the proceedings.

EDUCATION AND CHILDREN

85. Primary school class sizes – Data

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Education and Children:

If he will publish (a) the most-recently available class size data for each Island primary school broken down by school year, and (b) additional information which is needed to clarify and explain class arrangements?

The Minister for Education and Children (Mr Crookall): At the start of each academic year, we identify the number of students in each year group to populate Table 85A below. There will have been some minor fluctuations in numbers since then, as children enter or leave a primary 3420 school. ______1911 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Table 85A School R 1 2 3 4 5 6 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Anagh Coar 8 10 9 12 6 15 9 5 12 15 17 8 8 8 Andreas 5 10 14 8 6 4 7 8 13 5 9 10 5 10 Arbory 13 12 12 12 7 13 10 18 10 13 14 14 9 10 Ashley Hill 16 7 14 23 19 28 15 20 23 18 23 21 32 18 Ballacottier 17 23 21 20 28 14 20 20 16 15 19 26 19 21 5 4 2 7 4 14 13 2 7 5 9 5 6 2 Ballaugh 2 3 7 4 2 5 6 5 6 5 7 3 8 1 Braddan 15 12 14 7 14 13 7 18 16 8 9 10 5 8 Bunscoill Ghaelgagh 6 3 6 4 9 6 0 5 5 4 5 2 9 5 Bunscoill Rhumsaa 40 29 38 34 46 40 35 37 44 24 36 30 35 31 Cronk-Y-Berry 23 17 24 24 31 23 30 27 31 22 24 19 26 29 Dhoon 5 5 4 6 6 7 3 7 7 7 8 9 5 8 Foxdale 5 10 1 6 8 2 2 7 4 1 4 0 4 6 Henry Bloom Noble 17 25 34 27 20 13 20 15 21 14 24 14 16 18 Jurby 1 6 6 6 6 6 8 1 7 4 1 4 6 4 Kewaigue 9 5 7 10 10 6 11 12 11 12 8 8 10 10 Laxey 20 14 20 9 16 15 22 13 15 16 14 15 19 13 Manor Park 8 6 8 10 6 6 4 8 9 12 8 8 7 9 Marown 12 15 13 12 15 15 16 13 16 16 17 7 23 16 Michael 12 7 9 8 14 6 6 4 12 7 10 6 7 7 Onchan 34 35 21 36 38 25 27 33 38 31 25 24 31 26 Peel Clothworkers 32 27 41 28 32 41 27 26 29 15 25 30 19 22 Rushen 15 20 18 23 15 21 23 20 20 13 16 13 27 11 Scoill Phurt Le Moirrey 11 12 11 9 12 8 14 7 7 7 7 10 9 14 Scoill Vallajeelt 16 17 17 8 17 10 12 14 16 14 16 12 10 12 Scoill yn Jubilee 24 33 28 26 35 27 24 26 35 26 28 26 25 20 St John’s 10 12 11 13 15 12 11 13 5 16 8 11 14 13 St Mary’s RC 28 24 24 28 20 30 18 26 22 20 14 22 18 14 St Thomas’s 2 3 5 7 6 6 8 3 2 6 3 6 3 6 Sulby 7 10 11 9 13 15 11 5 11 14 12 13 13 12 Victoria Road 23 16 18 14 20 26 18 16 8 19 12 20 21 9 Willaston 13 15 19 16 15 13 19 12 12 11 15 4 14 12

Establishing average class sizes is not as straightforward as it would first appear. Headteachers have the responsibility, under the Articles and Instruments of Governance, to control the internal organisation of their schools and they may decide that groupings will be 3425 fluid. Pupils may begin a session in one group but can be re-grouped in various ways (age, ability, topic being studied, whole class, pairs, friendship, achievement etc.) as a day or week progresses. However, the Department monitors the ratio of pupils at a particular school divided by the overall number of teachers – the pupil-teacher ratio – to provide the best indication of how equitably schools are staffed. The ratio, across the Island, for the current academic year is 3430 20.7 pupils per teacher (including headteachers). In allocating staffing to primary schools, the Department seeks to be as fair as possible. Early in the calendar year, we ask for predicted pupil numbers (from within the school’s catchment area), along with other indicators such as the percentage of free school meals, proportion of pupils with additional needs etc.) This is all entered into a spreadsheet which calculates an 3435 indicative staffing figure, based on the same formula for all schools. The formula allows for 10% ‘non-contact’ or PPA time for every teacher and ensures that there are not significant imbalances in pupil-teacher ratios around the Island. The Director of Education then looks at the actual breakdown of pupils to see if, given the number indicated for each school, it’s possible to reasonably staff the school in that 3440 way. Following several meetings, staffing numbers are given to schools.

______1912 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

86. New school at Castle Rushen – Progress with plans

The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Minister for Education and Children:

What progress his Department has made in progressing plans for a new school at Castle Rushen?

The Minister for Education and Children (Mr Crookall): We have financial provision within the capital budget for the current financial year to develop a current business case for the new school. We have started to scope this study and this will move forward with various work groups 3445 from September, for completion by next March 2017 as planned.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

87. Gulls – Legislation to control nuisance to residents

The Hon. Member for Douglas East (Mr Joughin) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

Whether current legislation is adequate to protect residents from the nuisance of nesting gulls?

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Gulls are wild birds and as such the control of gull issues occurs under the Wildlife Act 1990. Under this Act a licence can be issued by the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture for purposes specified in section 16 of the Act. A general licence is currently in place 3450 providing for action to preserve public health or public safety. The control of birds for nuisance issues (e.g. bird noise) cannot however be licensed under the Act.

88. Foxdale Mines and Deads – Control of erosion; reduction of water contamination

The Hon. Member for Peel (Mr Harmer) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

What action is being taken in the Foxdale Mines and Deads area to reduce erosion, restricting access and capping to allow regeneration of growth and thereby reduce contaminants into waterways?

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): One of the main mine spoils in Foxdale, the Louisa Deads, has been capped and developed for a private residence. 3455 Vehicular access to Beckwiths mine, near Glen Rushen, has been restricted for many years and in recent years the Forestry Directorate has also fenced Cornelly Mine which is located to the north of Archallagan plantation. Dixons Vein and the majority of Cross Vein also have ______1913 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

restricted access; however a relatively flat area of spoil adjacent to the Arrasey Road is accessible. Unlike other areas of mine spoil this particular site does not contain a stream, so 3460 dispersal of spoil is somewhat limited. The Department has carried out small scale tests and successfully re-vegetated bare spoil. However, whilst not the most attractive habitat, undisturbed spoil can harbour rare plants such as moonwort and adder’s tongue fern. The Department currently has no plans to re-vegetate areas of spoil, but the area in question 3465 will be reviewed again in the future as to potential uses and opportunities with this question also in mind.

89. Biomass boilers – Government installations and breakdowns

The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

How many biomass boilers Government has installed; what the cost was of each installation; how many are operational; and how many breakdowns each installation has had?

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): There have been five biomass boiler installations to date, which include the DEFA system at St John’s, QEII School, Reayrt y Chrink, Cooyrt Shellagh at Clagh Vane and Hazel Court, Upper Pulrose. Of these, three 3470 were installed by Government and two were installed for housing schemes by local authorities. Four are operational and the Department are working with the local authority to try to identify a solution to issues with the other, which is the housing scheme at Reayrt y Chrink. In terms of the detail requested the Department is only able to comment currently on its own installation at St John’s. We will work with the other site managers to see what information can 3475 be gathered and made available. The DEFA package including installation, of all pumps, storage vessels, woodchip hopper, biomass boiler and back up oil boiler cost £215,833 (in 2010). This has broken down once as a result of trialling different grades of fuel. The technology is developing rapidly in this field and the Department continues to improve 3480 the fuel quality despite meeting the requirements of the Woodsure Quality Assurance scheme. Biomass represents a locally produced, price-stable and virtually carbon-neutral fuel source that is predominantly remote from price increases and fluctuations of other fuels.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

90. West Midlands Quality Review Service – Progress report on recommendations to DHSC

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

If he will list all of the recommendations made by West Midlands Quality Review Service to date and report on those which have been actioned, and of those that have not been actioned if he will list them in order of those classed as having short term, medium term and long term timescales? ______1914 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister for Social Care (Mr Quayle): The West Midland Quality Review Service (WMQRS) has been working with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to conduct a 3485 series of peer reviews since November, 2013. The objective of these reviews is to assist the Department to identify where health services across the Isle of Man are performing well and where improvements might be made. The DHSC recently received the final report of Women and Children’s Services carried out in October 2015. Five review reports have now been received and published. Each report contains 3490 details of achievements and good practice, immediate risks to clinical safety and clinical outcomes and conclusions regarding compliance against a set of quality standards. In total there are over 500 separate areas for consideration in the five reports. The Quality Standards are derived by WMQRS from a variety of sources applied to equivalent health care services in England. The number of such standards applied in each review has ranged 3495 from 250 to just over 500. Whilst our local services meet a good number of these there are a significant number which are not met because we cannot provide services identical to those provided in UK NHS hospitals. The DHSC established the Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) Board in March 2015 to oversee work on the recommendations. The QIP Board reports regularly to the DHSC 3500 Governance structures. At the completion of each review visit, any immediate risks identified by the peer review teams are reported directly to the DHSC Directors and actions are taken to address them. We report back to WMQRS within a specified period and our actions are always reported in the published final report. Consequently, all short-term issues from each of the five reviews to date 3505 have been dealt with. The QIP responds to the recommendations requiring action in the medium term. It consists of several workstreams focusing on the key areas requiring improvement including for example: HR processes; involving patients and carers in service review and development; ensuring the public are provided with information about our services; the development of 3510 policies and procedures; and improving discharge management and patient flow in the hospital. Each workstream has by a detailed project plan. Currently there are six workstreams in QIP and these are:  Cancer  Staff training and development 3515  Public, Patient and Carer Involvement and Information  Policies, Guidance & Procedures  Discharge Management  Patient Flow  Business Intelligence (BI) 3520 Much of this work builds a foundation on which to build improved practice across all service areas. Although initial progress was slow, a number of workstreams are nearing completion, at which point they will have achieved their purpose to have addressed previously unmet standards. A review of the workstreams on 8th July, 2016 showed the following progress: 3525

______1915 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Similarly significant work has been progressed against the discharge management workstream including improved communication and multi-agency working across hospital , 3530 community and social care and planning to introduce criteria led discharge. Policies, Guidelines and Procedures assessments made across all health settings, Mental Health and Community progressing well and hospital wide particularly well progressed in Women and Children’s and Diagnostic divisions. Patient Flow – improvements in transport arrangements and community equipment for 3535 patient use outside of the hospital have been focussed upon. There is a third group of recommendations requiring action over a longer term. The majority of these require additional funding, often in the form of staff, which is not achievable at present. However the work being developed as part of QIP relating to workforce planning may also result in current staff establishments being altered to better meet standards 3540 (but balanced against increasing demand from an ageing population). Other standards in this longer term category require fundamental changes to our current service delivery models and they fall into the area covered by the five year Health and Social Care strategy. Attention to them will thus be part of the strategy implementation.

HOME AFFAIRS

91. Fire Regulations for landlords and businesses– Grants and compensation for compliance

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

Where additional sensors are required by the new Fire Precaution Regulations he will make a 100% grant available to landlords; where an existing building, whether approved under the 1996 Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations, fails to comply with the 2016 Fire Regulations without substantial structural change whether he will grant an exemption; where the 2016 Fire Regulations seek an uplift on periods of fire resistance to a minimum of 60 minutes if he will make a 100% grant available together with full compensation for the loss of rental income while modifications are undertaken; where modifications to an historic building reduce its value and compromise architectural features whether the owners of the building will be compensated for their loss; whether the owner of any business caused to close as a result of new fire regulations will receive full compensation; and what future the rich architectural heritage of older buildings has if new fire regulations are adopted?

______1916 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Watterson): Subject to the approval by Tynwald, the Fire 3545 Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 [SD 2016/0218] (‘the 2016 Fire Regulations’) will make provision, for the first time, for fire safety standards and procedures to apply to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) as they do to flats. Requirements in relation to sensors in existing flats will remain unaltered from the requirements of the Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996 [SD 222/96] (‘the 1996 Fire 3550 Regulations’). In respect of HMOs, there would be a requirement for every room used for sleeping to have two detectors. One would be a heat detector connected to the main fire alarm system to warn everyone else in the building of a fire, and the other would be a smoke detector designed to give the occupant of the room early warning of a fire, i.e. burning toast. A number of the properties that may wish to register as HMOs are currently guest houses. As 3555 such they will already have a level of fire safety granted from operating under a fire certificate. In the case of properties changing their use or status from that of a guest house to an HMO, the changes required to fire safety systems should be minimal. Similarly, changes will not be required if a flat, or a building containing a flat, already complies with the 1996 Fire Regulations as it is anticipated such a property will also comply with 3560 the yet to be approved 2016 Fire Regulations given the modifications in Part 8 of the 2016 Fire Regulations with respect to such properties. Specifically, the minimum fire resistance between flats and habitable rooms remains unchanged at 30 minutes while the fire separation between basements, rooms of special fire hazard (such as a boiler room) and other occupancies within a building (e.g. flats with a 3565 restaurant below) is now 60 minutes fire resistance in line with current building regulations. The Department will not be requiring existing flats, or buildings containing flats, to be retrofitted so as to comply with this requirement. Taking the above in to consideration the Department considers it difficult to foresee any circumstances where complying with these Regulations, which are about promoting fire safety, 3570 would result in any loss of value. If the requirements of the 2016 Fire Regulations do pose undue challenges to property owners the Department would be prepared to consider applications for exemptions from the proposed regulations as long as there are suitable alternative fire safety measures. The 2016 Fire Regulations will prescribe the minimum fire safety measures necessary to 3575 ensure the safety of any person living in, or visiting, a flat or HMO. The decision to close a business rather than comply with these Regulations is a matter for the business owner.

INFRASTRUCTURE

92. DOI-held local government housing – Rental income

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Malarkey) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What the budgeted rent income was from the local government housing held by his Department in 2014-15, 2015-16 and what the actual rent collected was in each of those years?

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): 2014-15 – Budgeted (DOI) rent income: £4,986,865.70. Budgeted (DOI) rent collected: £4,939,781.45 2015-16 – Budgeted (DOI) rent income: £5,225,984.00. Budgeted (DOI) rent collected: 3580 £5,208,488.00

______1917 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

93. DOI-held local government housing – Maintenance budget

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Malarkey) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What the budgeted value was of the maintenance budget for the local government housing held by his Department in 2014-15, 2015-16; what the actual amount spent was in each of those years; and whether those amounts include staff salaries for those employed in the maintenance section and if so what the total value of this was in 2014-15, 2015-16?

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): In 2014-15, the DOI held a budget for maintenance of Government-owned social housing of £1,221,600. In that year the total spent was slightly less than budgeted at £1,165,511; included in the total spend were staff salary costs 3585 of £221,405. For 2015-16 the budget was increased to £1,290,054; spend was slightly greater (5%) than this at £1,356,560 including £220,418 of staff salaries.

94. Social housing stock units – Number held per housing authority

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Malarkey) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

How many social housing stock units were held by each housing authority broken down by (a) general stock and (b) sheltered?

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): (a) The number of general stock units per authority: Authority No. of Units Braddan 185 Castletown 258 DOI 1212 Douglas BC 2244 Onchan 399 Malew 8 Peel 286 Port Erin 209 Port St Mary 122 Ramsey 553 Rushen 4 Total 5480

3590 (b) The number of sheltered stock units per authority:

Authority No. of Units Castletown & Malew 42 Cooil Roi 34 Douglas BC 133 Marashen Crescent 136 Onchan 100 Peel & Western 91 Ramsey & Northern District Housing 144 Total 680 ______1918 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

95. Local authority housing deficiency – Figures for 2013 to 2016

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Malarkey) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What were (a) the budgeted and (b) the actual local authority housing deficiency incurred in the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, broken down by each housing authority?

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Since the Housing Division joined DoI in April 2015, there has been significant work carried out to review the Housing deficiency arrangements. New guidelines were issued to local authorities to provide them with a clear understanding of 3595 what can be included in their claims/estimates to develop consistency across the Housing sector. This has challenged the levels of claim made by a number of authorities and in a number of cases reduced the overall expenditure to the tax payer Table 95A below shows a summary of the Housing Deficiency budgets for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. It should be noted that: 3600 1. The Budget is determined by the submission of individual estimates by each Housing Authority. 2. The actual spend is based on the individual authority determined claim for the year. 3. The 2015-16 costs have not yet been finalised and the deficiency incurred values for the authorities below are based on the estimates provided by the relevant authority. 3605  Douglas  Braddan  Port Erin  Peel & Western Table 95A 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 * Not yet finalised Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Deficiency Deficiency Deficiency Housing Authority Incurred Incurred Incurred Braddan Parish 228,700 126,367 168,600 78,902 40,500 52,620 Commissioners Castletown 0 0 4,200 0 0 0 Douglas Borough Council 1,184,900 584,767 959,600 270,552 293,200 326,617 Peel Town Commissioners 859,900 480,813 891,400 550,541 335,600 378,370 Port Erin Village 104,900 0 44,000 142,958 0 159,343 Commissioners Port St Mary Village 149,700 60,021 114,400 43,451 30,200 31,413 Commissioners Ramsey Town 1,342,100 1,176,414 1,176,900 1,219,231 436,700 1,099,171 Commissioners Rushen Parish 6,800 6,351 5,600 3,865 1,800 3,769 Commissioners Castletown & Malew 244,700 181,481 235,100 187,750 95,900 172,800 Cooil Roi 133,200 116,910 127,500 173,918 51,500 117,300 Marashen Crescent 532,700 416,314 510,200 618,243 210,700 322,293 Peel & Western 396,600 315,511 419,000 278,796 169,900 318,948 Ramsey & Northern 624,900 109,465 631,800 272,212 343,400 275,577 Royal British Legion 24,300 49,975 18,300 24,523 4,100 0 Onchan Elderly 423,400 304,419 455,600 310,202 189,400 291,556 6,256,800 3,928,808 5,762,200 4,175,145 2,202,900 3,549,777 ______1919 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Order of the Day

4. Housing – Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure

3610 The President: We turn now to Item 4, Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Hon. Members, as this administration draws to a close, I wish to provide a brief Statement, capturing some of the many highlights delivered in respect of housing during the previous five 3615 years. I hope that these few words will provide encouragement to the next administration assisting them to build upon the progress already made and helping them to safeguard the future of affordable housing on the Isle of Man. It is important to say that over the last five years, we have provided: over £6.2 million-worth 3620 of assistance to first-time buyers, helping them to buy their own homes and over £69 million investment in public sector housing, including for example, a major redevelopment of 149 units, at the Lezayre estate, Ramsey; a new 38-apartment sheltered housing complex built at Upper Pulrose, Douglas; a redevelopment scheme providing 155 new and refurbished properties, at Janet’s Corner, Castletown; a new 34-apartment sheltered housing complex at Reayrt Y Chrink, 3625 Port Erin; 17 additional new sheltered housing apartments built at Marashen Crescent Housing Complex, Port Erin. Construction has also started on a new 40-unit sheltered housing complex at Westlands, Peel, which is part of a scheme to produce a total of 121 new homes. These projects have contributed to a 35% reduction in public sector housing waiting lists since the start of this administration. 3630 In addition to the delivery of these new and replacement properties, there has been significant investment in existing stock to keep quality and standards in line with modern expectations and lifestyles. For example: a kitchen modernisation and replacement programme, delivering new kitchens fitted to over 2400 properties; new and more efficient gas boilers to over 600 properties; new external doors fitted to around 1,500 properties; commencement of a 3635 10-year major refurbishment of Willaston Estate in Douglas. The level of investment combined with the scale of these properties has delivered much- needed support for the Manx construction industry, as it is clear that affordable housing is one of the key drivers in our economy. In April 2015, the Housing Division transferred to my Department from the Department of 3640 Health and Social Care. This move has been very successful and has enabled the Department to make significant progress in developing the Local Authority Transition Programme. By encouraging local authorities to work together, it has improved the relationship between central and local government, and this partnership is for the benefit of the Island as a whole. The Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas, Member for Housing, has brought together 3645 regional working parties which, through collaboration, are set to deliver many of the objectives of the Housing Review, for example shared regional housing waiting lists. The key principle for the Department, though, is that local authorities are encouraged, not forced, to engage in the process. I would like to thank both Mr Thomas and the many local authority politicians, and their 3650 officers, who have willingly given up their time to make this progress happen. I sincerely hope that this will continue and we are able to work positively together, with the aim of delivering local services for local people long into the Island’s future. Protecting the vulnerable has been a priority for this Government, and we have recognised the need to modernise services, improve access and increase fairness in the provision of

______1920 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

3655 affordable housing for our people, both now and into the future. While rents remain low in comparison to the private sector and to public sector housing in similarly economically buoyant parts of the UK, it is clear that public sector tenants are struggling to meet above-inflation rent increases, as well as substantial increases in rates. For this reason, the Department abandoned plans for a further above-inflation rent increase this year as well as freezing the planned £80- 3660 per-household increases in waste disposal charges. One of the challenges we still face outside the remit of Government-owned housing stock is that of fuel poverty, which mainly affects those either in their own homes or in private rented accommodation. We have been working closely with colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care, and indeed the Department of Environment, Food and 3665 Agriculture, on a range of options that will seek to improve the energy efficiency of these homes, which will be good for residents and the environment. For this strategy to be successful there are two issues which need to be considered. The first is, as with many things, funding. It is my hope that the new administration will make dealing with fuel poverty a financial priority. 3670 The second is awareness. We must work to protect the most vulnerable people in society who may be living in inadequate accommodation, unaware of the harm that this can do to their health and wellbeing, and unware that help may be available to them. Public sector employees can play a crucial role in helping vulnerable people when they see the need and we will be making it easier for them to do this, as well as ensuring access to adaptations and alternative 3675 housing rental options. It is essential that we continue to work towards meeting the challenges ahead in terms of our changing housing needs. These include: an ageing population, smaller households and a higher dependency ratio – all of which will impact on the design, location and cost of housing in future years. We therefore need to target any public funds wisely to protect and assist those who are 3680 the least able to help themselves. Hon. Members will recall that Tynwald supported 25 policy recommendations of an Independent Review of Housing in November 2013. The Housing Review programme is now entering its third year and has delivered housing reform, which includes: introduction of fixed term tenancies for public sector general needs housing; the introduction of shared equity 3685 assistance for first-time buyers, including greater assistance for open market properties; increased income levels and house purchase prices to widen the access to financial help for first time buyers; development of new affordable housing design standards; new access and eligibility criteria for public sector older persons housing to ensure it targets need; and introducing tried and tested technologies to make homes more thermally efficient, to provide 3690 energy savings and avoid excessive fuel costs. The remaining housing review work is progressing rapidly, and in addition to the partnership working with local authorities, its outcomes will result in: an increased ability to plan for long- term public stock investment needs; an increased range of affordable renting options and first- time-buyer opportunities; the modernisation of housing legislation; the provision of modern 3695 standards of service delivery, with monitoring, accountability and support for the housing sector, including both public and private. It is important to note that we, as a nation, face significant challenges ahead as we progress with modernising public services to meet the local needs. There is continuing need for housing with household growth projected to increase by just over 3,000 over the next 10 years. This 3700 means that new planning approvals may be required for over 3,000 dwellings to ensure sufficient supply. People are living a lot longer these days, which is good news in many respects but also brings with it some challenges. Based on current retirement ages, the number of retired people will increase by nearly 5,000 people by 2026, which will clearly have an impact on housing type, size 3705 and location. This demographic shift also means we need to be open to potential growth in the need for specialist housing provision and extra care facilities as people live longer. The continued ______1921 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

close working relationship with other Departments is essential to ensure there are opportunities for this type of development and similar facilities are available when the need arises. Hon. Members, we have made great progress over the past five years but I accept there is 3710 still much to do. If – and I say, if – above-inflation increases are to be contemplated in the future then some form of means testing must be introduced first. We also need to protect vulnerable people living in private rental properties, and new legislation to better regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants must be a priority for the new Government in October. There are many people in the Isle of Man who need our support so that they can live in 3715 adequate accommodation, and I believe that if we continue in the direction of travel outlined in this Statement we will meet the housing challenges ahead for the benefit of our nation and its people. Gura mie eu.

3720 The President: Hon. Members, the practice is, of course, that Statements are accompanied by written copies of the Statements, so apologies for the late arrival of the Statement in writing. Statements of course are not opportunities for debate, but there is the opportunity for questions so if Members have questions – not statements but questions – we will take them now. 3725 The first Member to indicate a question, Mr Cretney, Hon. Member of Council.

Mr Cretney: Thank you, Mr President. Could I thank the Hon. Member for his Statement and welcome in particular what has been done for older people, because that is a clear situation. I will also welcome the fact that we are 3730 not having the above-inflation rent increase this year. It seems to me the last time that happened was election year as well, so I am sure that is just a coincidence! (Laughter) However, when he is talking to Douglas Corporation or when his Member is talking Douglas Corporation, could they engage, please, in terms of the number of void properties which remain in that area? (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) Whilst this situation has certainly got better, there are still 3735 people in inadequate accommodation, waiting to be helped.

The President: Mr Gawne.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 3740 Yes, indeed, we do have regular discussions with Douglas Borough Council and have discussed the issue of void properties. There is a particular ongoing issue between the Department and the Council, in which the Department does not support the Council using revenue monies for capital expenditure. That is an issue that we have been trying to resolve and that has caused delay in some of the void issues. 3745 What I think I and Mr Thomas, and indeed Councillor Ashford, have said is we need to get on and sort these problems out. Yes, we seem to have an impasse in terms of how the officers see things, but the issue really is about people, and we need to get that sorted. In relation to above-inflation increases at the last election, there was an above-inflation increase. 3750 The President: Question, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Similar vein to the Hon. Member, Mr Cretney there – the number of void properties, not only 3755 in Douglas, but also in Onchan. Some of them are quite shameful, where we are waiting for properties to be repaired. If I could say to the Minister, there needs to be an investigation or your Department needs to look at these, to put some clarity on them. ______1922 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Also can I ask, when the Minister does indicate too, more adaptations to properties in the 3760 future, can I say, we need to engage on this across, either from Health to yourselves, to make these properties, as they are getting refurbished, into providing level-access showers, wider doors for wheelchair access – things that should be done as a matter of course and as a matter of policy. As those properties are redeveloped, they should be insisted on. Finally, if I can just say, regarding grant aid assistance, the other side of the coin is to the 3765 private sector as well, that we do not have anything at all. I find it is quite shameful really, that we are not having any small schemes to do loft insulation any more now. We have dropped off those minor ones, where it can make a big difference to an older property, and then, as later on we will see, when you are trying to bring an older property which is stone-built up to a modern standard. It does cost quite a bit of money. (Interjections) 3770 The President: Hon. Member –

Mr Quirk: I know, it is the first time you are probably going to tell me off, but I will sit down.

3775 The President: Please resume your seat. I thought I had made it clear that actually it is not an opportunity to make statements or debating points, but questions. We are never going to get through this Paper if, by definition of ‘question’ you have a great long statement first and then a question at the end of it. Please, Hon. Members, keep the questions concise. 3780 Mr Quirk: Apologies, Mr President, but I am asking the Minister, what is he going to do? (Laughter)

The President: Well, that took three seconds to say! (Laughter) 3785 Minister.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I am going to continue working there with the Hon. Member in his role as Member for … I don’t know … (Mr Quirk: Adult Services.) Adult Services – I was going to say ‘old people’, which 3790 was not the appropriate way to put it! But in relation to voids, adaptations, then yes, we are working closely on that. It is very much an important issue, particularly the voids issue. We have policies in place that are bringing down the number of voids, but obviously not fast enough, and we will do the best we can. As for the issue of grants, in relation to doing up properties that are in a poor condition in 3795 terms of energy efficiency, the Hon. Member for Douglas North is bringing a motion to a place near you in the very near future, which hopefully will be addressing that issue, and I hope it gets full support from this Court.

The President: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon. 3800 A Member: Question!

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I will be brief. The Minister has acknowledged that there has been a lot of development on 3805 this affordable housing, but would he not consider that providing bungalows for some of those people who are in social housing with a garden is very beneficial? I know in my own constituency it has been a real difficulty to get the Department to understand the value of a garden with a property, because it gives people something to take pride in.

3810 The President: Minister. ______1923 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Obviously, we have two issues that we have to deal with. The most important issue for me is the value of the life that people have who live in our properties; but obviously there is a secondary issue and that is the overall cost and value for money for taxpayers, and we have to 3815 take that into account as well.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Minister agree that spending is very easy, particularly 3820 when you look around here over the last 10 years, but what about getting value for money? Will he look at the issue of whether somebody appraises the value for money aspect? I look at things like kitchen replacements at ridiculous prices that would not be acceptable if it was done in my house. And what safeguards will be brought down as far as that is concerned? What I would also like to ask is whether the Minister will actually look at something that we 3825 have been trying to get sorted for some time, and that is to add to the planning in certain houses that the use and ownership could be put into certain planning permissions, in order that there is a restriction on the use that it cannot be rented out, they can only be owner-occupied, into the planning process? This more likely would be a much more effective way than what we have seen in our own schemes that we have got which have cost the taxpayer greatly. 3830 Can he put some sort of commitment down, after 20 years being on about this, and seeing what has been done in the Lake District and in the likes of Cornwall, that we can start looking at this as a way forward, instead of always throwing money at a problem?

The President: Minister to reply. 3835 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I think that anyone who has read the Written Answers that we gave to the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey, today … oh, no, you have not seen them yet, have you? (Mr Malarkey: No!) Well, they will be with you very soon! They will demonstrate that the 3840 Department has been very committed to pulling down the cost, particularly in relation to deficiency payments. As far as kitchen procurement, I was prepared for you on this one. These are not like-for-like replacements and involve extensive building works – for example, electric works, asbestos removal, demolition of walls etc, so it is not a like-for-like issue. (Interjection) 3845 As far as the excellent and innovative proposal that the Hon. Member has, it is worthy of consideration, what is highly likely to be the case is that the new administration will be coming forward with a fairly major review of our housing legislation. The housing legislation is very much out of date and needs to be reviewed, and also, further on the Order Paper we are talking about a significant review of planning as well. So both of those reviews will be able to 3850 incorporate the Hon. Member’s ideas.

5. Dependability Ltd – Statement by the Treasury Minister

The President: Item 5, Statement by the Treasury Minister, Mr Teare.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, sir. Hon. Members will recall the statement I made on Dependability Ltd at June Tynwald. I 3855 explained that on 19th May, Treasury became aware that one of Dependability’s assessors did not hold the required registration necessary in law to conduct face-to-face assessments. I also ______1924 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

explained the actions we had taken in respect of those assessments carried out on persons by the assessor who was not duly registered, which resulted in a decision that those persons were capable of work. 3860 I am now able to provide Hon. Members with an update of further actions that have been taken since June Tynwald. A decision has been taken to end the contract with Dependability Ltd. This decision follows a period when personal capability assessments were suspended. Actions have been taken to terminate the contract. 3865 Treasury has reconfirmed its commitment to the delivery of personal capability assessments, as required by the legislation; Given the pause in the delivery of personal capability assessments, the opportunity will be taken to review the way in which the personal capability assessment process operates. This will allow the Treasury to build improvements into the process moving forward. 3870 This review will include consideration of the different models that are available to deliver the element of the personal capability assessment that has previously been outsourced. This will include in-house delivery, delivery by a separate part of Isle of Man Government – for example, the Department of Health and Social Care – mixed or outsourced delivery. The Treasury intends to commission an independent and objective review of the operation of 3875 personal capability assessments, using expert input. This review will assist with the swift implementation of whatever model is recommended and agreed by Treasury for the future delivery of personal capability assessments. Requests for expressions of interest to deliver this review have been issued. It is hoped that this work will commence and conclude quickly to allow the prompt reinstatement of the 3880 assessments. At this stage, I am advised by the Acting Attorney General that I am unable to comment further on matters relating to the contract. Thank you, sir.

3885 The President: I invite questions. Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Can I ask the Treasury Minister: he will remember that some time ago, Mrs Beecroft brought forward a motion expressing a concern which was not supported, but I did support it – he can 3890 remember that I am sure – but can I ask him, since then, whilst we have only had the one situation where we had an unqualified person, is he telling us that this contract has been terminated because of that one particular incident; or are there other matters that have brought the Department to the conclusion that they have to terminate the contract? It does seem as though there is something else behind this. 3895 The President: Minister.

The Minister: I cannot make any further comment. I made it clear in the answer to a question earlier on and also in my Statement today, that unfortunately I cannot make any more 3900 comment.

The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. 3905 Could the Treasury Minister confirm whether the review that he is saying is going to be carried out fairly quickly, is it a review of the process itself? Will it cover reviewing the paperwork, because there has been an awful lot of complaint about it being a tick-box exercise, about questions not being relevant to the person’s condition etc? ______1925 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

If somebody has got a mental health issue, asking them if they can pick up a cardboard box is 3910 hardly relevant. There have been an awful lot of complaints about that sort of thing. So is the whole process, including all the forms and everything else that goes with it – is it the whole thing that is going to be reviewed?

The President: Reply, sir. 3915 The Minister: Thank you, sir. We are looking at an end-to-end review. Basically, the paperwork, the forms that people have to fill in, the entire process; learning from what has happened so far; how can it be improved, whilst making the actual process seamless for those people who are being assessed. 3920 The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Cretney.

Mr Cretney: Yes, on a similar point really, could the Minister confirm that the review will include … For example, there have always been certain categories of illness or whatever that 3925 have being excluded or conditions which had been excluded, which has meant that people have been excluded. Will the review look to see if that range of categories may in any way be extended, because for some of us, all the way along, there have been some categories where they have intermittent issues who really should not have been part of this process in our opinion? 3930 The President: Minister.

The Minister: I am quite happy to take that away, sir.

3935 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, can the Shirveishagh inform us, because of the status of what we have got at the present time, will people who have been assessed not be any worse off, or will they be reassessed? How many numbers are going to be reassessed out of the ones that have 3940 been assessed? Is the Shirveishagh telling us that maybe it would be far better that obviously the fiscal side of this process should be with his Department; but maybe there should be more input from the Department of Health and Social Care, as far as the policy for the assessments is concerned?

3945 The President: Minister.

The Minister: For those who are affected, we have already contacted them and discussed the matter with them. Basically, some had already gone and found employment. Some said they preferred to be on Jobseeker’s Allowance and try to find employment. So we worked with them 3950 to move forward. With regard to input from the Department of Health and Social Care, I did make it clear in my Statement that we were looking at all options. So basically, in effect, in the first phase, Mr President, we have actually looked at the people, and then after we have dealt with the people, as it were, we have now moved on to the process. 3955 The President: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. Could the Treasury Minister give us some assurance – or what assurance can he give – that 3960 whoever is actually going to be doing these assessments in the future will have appropriate due ______1926 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

diligence carried out on them, because it would seem that he has certainly slipped up in that area when one person was not legally qualified to carry them out on the Isle of Man, under our own legislation?

3965 The President: Minister.

The Minister: I can assure the Hon. Member who has just resumed her seat that all appropriate steps will be taken.

3970 The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. I welcome this Statement and also, although it is unfortunate, I welcome the statement from the Treasury Minister, that links with the Department of Health and Social Care will be 3975 reinforced. I want to ask a question about whether or not the links with the Department of Economic Development and the nature of work – because some work is therapeutic for some people rather than being ever so productive – and I think it is very important that this review includes the whole aspect about returning to work and the nature of the work. 3980 My second question is about whether the review could consider the whole process of the tribunals and the Social Security Commissioner in all of this, because I think the Treasury Minister should acknowledge that those people involved were very bold taking on such an important policy, doing their job, of course, but I think there should be some acknowledgement and some engagement with the role played by those bodies in this review. 3985 And finally, the third question to the Treasury Minister is about the operations staff and the role played by the operations staff, because I am sure everything was well meant, and I am sure everything was professional; but, that said, I am sure there are lessons that need to be learned from this whole episode in this benefit and in the administration of this benefit, but also in other benefits. I hope that the Treasury Minister can assure us that the whole role played by 3990 operations will actually be considered at this stage.

The President: Minister.

The Minister: We are certainly working with the Department of Economic Development. 3995 Also, we recognise that people who may have a condition, whilst they are not able to resume their former form of employment or occupation or career, for that matter, could well be retrained to enable them to assemble the skills to enable them to take other career opportunities. As far as tribunals are concerned I do not have any intention at the present time to include 4000 them in the review. We are looking at the assessment process at the moment. He raised the issue of operation staff. Yes, there will be lessons to be learned and I think it is important that we now make the decision to bring somebody external in from outside to do that independent review.

4005 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Singer.

The Deputy Speaker: Treasury Minister, would you say that in light of this Statement overall Dependability assessments were not fit for purpose?

4010 The President: Minister to reply.

______1927 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The Minister: Well actually there was a very small number, and I did say last month that there were 20 that we had issues with. Now, that is 20 out of 888 assessments so it is a very small percentage, about 2½%. So I think, really, that it has proved its worth but we have to 4015 acknowledge that we have to have a look at the process again, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The President: Mrs Beecroft.

4020 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. In the Treasury Minister’s statement he says that one of Dependability’s assessors did not hold the required registration necessary in law to conduct face-to-face assessments. Could he confirm whether or not this person had the necessary qualifications under law to validate assessments carried out by others doing face-to-face assessments? 4025 The President: Mr Teare.

The Minister: I said in answer to a question raised earlier that this was, in effect, a quality assurance review, making sure that the steps have been correctly implemented. It was not an 4030 assessment per se.

6. Residential accommodation for medical staff – Expenditure approved

The Minister for Health and Social Care to move:

That Tynwald approves of the Department of Health and Social Care incurring expenditure not exceeding £2,282,000 in respect of Medical Staff Residential Accommodation, Noble’s Hospital, Braddan.

[Ref item 1 ‘Residential Accommodation Medical Staff’ under the heading ‘Health and Social Care’ on page 30 of the Isle of Man Budget 2016/17 and as described in Appendix 5 – Full Capital programme including 2016/17 approvals on page 73 of the Isle of Man Budget 2016/17]

The President: Hon. Members, we move on then to Item 6, Residential Accommodation Medical Staff, and I call on the Minister for Health and Social Care to move that motion at Item 6. Mr Quayle.

4035 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. The motion before you today seeks the approval of this Hon. Court to the expenditure of the sum not exceeding £2.28 million for the construction of a new purpose-built, six-house, 48-bed, staff accommodation facility at Noble's Hospital. This proposal fits within the Department's accommodation strategy, which is to have all our 4040 staff residences in close proximity to the main hospital. To offset some of the cost of the building, it will be the intention to sell current accommodation assets in Douglas, which have a market value of approximately £1.8 million. Our residences are used by a range of staff such as medical, nursing and other professions on a short-term basis for up to 12 months at a time. In the case of medical staff, it is a requirement 4045 for the hospital training status that accommodation is provided for junior doctors at Noble's Hospital as part of their training programme. We also provide accommodation for clinicians who ______1928 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

are providing locum cover for the Hospital. For the other staff the availability of residential accommodation is a powerful tool in our recruitment armoury. Hon. Members, the Nurses Home on Westmoreland Road is 66 years old and was built to the 4050 standards of that era. There are two or three shared bathrooms and four to six shared toilets on each floor for over 30 people to use. The building is dilapidated and cannot be upgraded to today's standards. Its ongoing maintenance costs are very high; it is not, basically, fit for purpose. The Department is proposing to construct a block similar to terraced housing with 48 en-suite 4055 bedrooms overall. The new accommodation will provide enhanced, high specification accommodation, and that will enable nursing and medical staff to live comfortably and feel part of the extended community in Braddan and Noble’s estate. The Court will appreciate that the Department has an obligation to support our staff and that the happiness and well-being of staff visiting the Island, with a view to developing their career 4060 on the Island, is an important factor in retaining staff. The standard of accommodation and ability to feel part of a community outside of work is an important factor for employees when considering whether to make the Island a more permanent home. The design will be to the latest environmental and sustainability standards. Various health and care assets have passed into Government ownership at different times over the past half- 4065 century, and approval of the motion before you today will provide an opportunity for the existing Nurses Home site to pass into Government ownership from its current owners, the Henry Bloom Noble Healthcare Trust. In recognition of the co-operation which we received from the trustees, the new facility will be named the Henry Bloom Noble Healthcare Trust Residence. In summary, Mr President, the new facility will enable the Department to provide much 4070 improved, inviting and comfortable accommodation for our staff who need it, ensuring that they feel welcomed and valued. The Department wishes to provide accommodation of a high standard in order to successfully recruit and retain much-needed professional staff. I trust Hon. Members will give the Department their support. I beg to move 4075 The President: Mr Quirk.

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

4080 The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I have got no problems with supporting the issue. I think it is important that we make sure that … obviously in a Health Service that is changing from the times of my first membership of the DHSS, in those days you got a general surgeon 4085 who did everything. We are getting more and more specialised, and what I do hope that we will be seeing is the issue that we are going to see more and more specialisation, with centres of excellence off-Island, so that will be reflected in the type of accommodation that we are going to be developing as far as the future is concerned. I know from our experience when we were dealing with the building of the new hospital that 4090 we came under great pressure about wanting to have our own cancer unit, which one had to make quite clear would have been absolute nonsense and would have put our citizens in a disadvantage as far as getting the right intervention at the right time. So I would like the Minister to consider that with the changes that are going to have to take place with the specialisation – and, alright, there will be telemedicine – that this accommodation 4095 will reflect what will actually be needed if we are to bring more specialists in from centres of excellence in the future. Obviously, that is a different client base. I am delighted to see that we have managed to succeed in keeping our status as far as junior doctors and training is concerned with the Deanery ______1929 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

of Liverpool, but there is a different type of accommodation there, and I would like to know 4100 whether there has been any reflection in the fact that we are going to have to go down more cross co-operation with the United Kingdom centres of excellence, and even maybe the Irish Republic, that this new accommodation does not find itself being antiquated in a very short time. The other thing I would like the Minister to think about is the Nurses Home. Whilst it might 4105 be obsolete and not up to standard, we have a growing problem with an underclass in this Island as far as accommodation is concerned. I just wonder whether the Minister will consider whether there will be a progressive policy to see whether there is anything that can be worked with – Graih or one of the other homeless charities, or even any organisation that is looking for some sort of almost sheltered accommodation facility, a ‘core and cluster’ basis for people coming off 4110 drugs or alcohol. Because at the moment we have a problem, from what I am led to believe by the people who actually frequent this service at the present time, and I just would like the Minister to consider that issue. That it is not a done deal that the Nurses Home comes down, if there is an opportunity that with a little bit of refurbishment it can actually help for one of the less palatable, less favourable sections of our society, that do not win votes, but are equal 4115 citizens within our society, and we should be doing more to help them.

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

Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. 4120 Four brief points which I believe the Minister will be advised about by his staff: the first one is to do with the sale mentioned there of three buildings, including Belmont Road and other places around the Central Douglas constituency. Unfortunately, there was a bit of a mishap with the first planning application for the property that is being sold and there was an appeal taken by Douglas Borough Council because no yellow notice was displayed. Can the Minister assure me 4125 that the property transactions from now on will be handled properly in respect of those three houses, even though the maximum price is being sought, because some of those houses are in delicate areas. The second point is, building on the point raised by the Hon. Member for Onchan, it seems to me that for 10 years or so the site around the old Nurses Home has actually been considered for 4130 valuable development in an integrated way, with Crookall House being there, and all of the other facilities. I hope the Minister can assure me that no decisions have already been made about how that site that is being vacated will actually be used, and that the whole of Government can actually gather together to make the best of that site in coming years. And the third point, again building on what the Hon. Member for Onchan said, is that I am 4135 not aware, as yet, that his staff handling the lettings of the former facility, or even the new facility, are fully engaged with thinking about the issues of key workers in other sectors. For instance, at the schools perhaps even social workers and even beyond that to other public sector letting process. And I hope the Minister will agree that it is a good idea for Departments to work together to actually consider how we can get the most out of working together for all of 4140 the professions around the Island that have problems with housing workers when they first come to the Island. Finally, I hope that these staff, doctors, actually pay proper rent for the facility, so I was surprised to learn that this project is going to be financed from the consolidated loans fund. Because to me it would be an absolutely perfect project, given the assured revenue that we are 4145 promised from the project, to actually finance in a more imaginative way to save the consolidated loans fund for capital projects that quite clearly are necessary but do not have any specific revenue associated with them. So I hope that the Department and the Treasury will actually work together on some sort of key worker … perhaps even bond financed arrangement for this crucial development and other developments that might result and flow from the site 4150 that is being vacated. ______1930 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

The President: I call on the Minister to reply, Mr Quayle

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President, and I thank the obvious support from Members. Obviously, we gave a presentation and I thank the Members who did attend for coming, where 4155 they were able to have a significant amount of their concerns and questions answered. If we move on to the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, and I thank his no hesitation to support this development; it is greatly appreciated. He mentioned doing business with more centres of excellence, and he is quite correct. We are too small as a hospital to do everything on the Isle of Man, but I would point out the wet macular (ARMD) treatment where we are flying 4160 people over now to have surgeries on the Isle of Man, it probably works out cheaper than us sending people off to those specialist areas. So maybe doing deals where these specialist centres send people over to us, we can also maybe look at sending out some of our students, training nurses, to go over to these specialist training hospitals, when we are trying to recruit children’s nurses, for example, going forward in the future. 4165 He mentioned the ability to extend the facility, and yes, we are building enough for what we feel will be 90% occupancy. Should there be a significant increase in demand in the future the infrastructure and the land is there, Mr President, to extend that, should there be a need in the future. And it is being built to standards that are applicable to English and Irish staff residences for medical staff, so I think I can assure him that we have built it to the latest spec. 4170 He then mentioned the old facility and it was a valid point – what could be done with it? Not to forget the vulnerable and could we do something there to help with housing. Whilst it is a very valid point, unfortunately the Nurses Home, the cost of maintaining it and the work that needs to be done to it, Mr President, I think it is around £600,000 needed to bring it up to a good standard going forward. Therefore I am afraid it would probably … sometimes in building it 4175 is cheaper to flatten and build a new building than to try and maintain a 60-year-old building and bring it up to spec. The property transactions are handled by the Strategic Asset Management Unit (SAMU), part of the Treasury, in answer to the Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas, and therefore the sale of the buildings etc. will be dealt with, and I would hope very much that they would do it to 4180 the highest standard. In answer to his second question – it is a valuable site – and it is a valuable site, it is a good location and we are always open to ideas and I am sure SAMU will look forward to any other Departments who maybe have an expressed interest coming in on that site. And that sort of flows into his next point – working together on the site, Government Departments – and I think 4185 that has got to be an absolute must. Then he mentioned financing it, maybe through a Treasury bond or something and that is really for Treasury to take forward. We have got our bid in and I think I have circulated to all Members what the cost will be over the 30-year period. We aim to run at a 90% occupancy. We do not have space, Mr President, at Noble’s Hospital, for other Departments to build houses 4190 there. We would be very supportive of maybe freeing up land if we have anything in our control that is spare for other Departments to sight; but the Hospital site, if we allowed other Departments to come and build on it, we would have nothing left in a very short space of time, and I think we need to ensure that any development going on at Noble’s Hospital site has to be for the Department. That is not an ivory tower; it is just that we do not have an endless amount 4195 of land up there. If I can just point out also, in one of the points of Mr Thomas, the rent is subsidised as part of a recruitment strategy for six months. I thank the Hon. Members for their support and I beg to move.

4200 The President: Hon. Members, the motion is that set out at Item 6, in the name of the Minister for Health and Social Care. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. ______1931 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

7. Education Act 2001 – Additional funding; pre-school credit voucher scheme – Expenditure approved

The Minister for Education and Children to move:

That Treasury make £503,000 funding available for the 2016-17 financial year, through the budget virement transfer of non-contributory benefits expenditure from Treasury’s Social Security Division to the Department of Education and Children and,

That Tynwald further approves a permanent budget transfer from the Social Security Division’s non-contributory benefits to the DEC of £740,000 from 2017-18 onwards in order to fund the ongoing cost of the increased provision of the pre-school credit voucher scheme.

The President: We turn to Item 7, Education Act 2001. I call on the Minister for Education and Children, Mr Crookall, to move. 4205 The Minister for Education and Children (Mr Crookall): Thank you, Mr President. Hon. Members, the purpose of this motion is to seek the approval of the Hon. Court to the additional expenditure of £503,000 in the current financial year, rising to £740,000 in the year 2017-18 to fund an increase in the pre-school credit scheme. 4210 The current scheme, which was introduced in 2012, provides a standard universal credit of £800 per annum and a higher credit of £1,500 per annum for those families in receipt of income- based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employed Person’s Allowance or Income Support. The credits are to be used towards the cost of pre-school education in the academic year in which the child’s fourth birthday falls. This level of credit provides, on average, just under five 4215 hours per week in the case of standard credit and just under nine hours per week for the higher credit. By increasing the standard credit to £1,700 per annum, a child would have the opportunity of attending sessions up to 10 hours per week throughout the pre-school year. An increase in the higher rate credit to £2,150 per annum, applicable to families in receipt of income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employed Person’s Allowance or Income Support would, 4220 on average, provide 12½ hours per week for pre-schooling. In Jersey the level provided by the States is 20 hours per week for 38 weeks of the year. In England there is universal provision for 15 hours per week, commencing the term after the child’s third birthday, with additional free provision for two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged families. The Childcare Bill outlined plans for provision for three- and four-year- 4225 olds to be extended to 30 hours per week for working parents, and this is currently being implemented in pilot authorities. Whilst the proposed increase in provision does not match the offer available in England, it does narrow the gap. There is overwhelming evidence of the positive impact high quality early years provision has 4230 on outcomes for children. The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimated that pre-school attendance and attending a pre-school of high-quality led to positive financial returns over lifetime earnings for the individual, the household and the Exchequer. Prioritising support for a significant increase in the pre-school credit is very firmly underlined by both the Agenda for Change and a number of the social policy principles, both of which have 4235 been agreed by Tynwald. Mr President, this is another significant step in the right direction by my Department and I beg to move.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Malarkey. 4240 ______1932 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

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

The President: The Hon. Member for Peel, Mr Harmer.

4245 Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr President. I rise to support the motion and to congratulate the Department. It is good to see progress on this issue, and a positive outcome following the Social Affairs Committee findings which recommend a minimum of 12½ hours per week per child, and the Department’s positive response following the question I raised in another place. 4250 There is significant evidence, which has been collated over recent years, to reveal how pre- school has a positive and long-lasting impact on a child’s attainment. In fact, the measure is timely with the Economist at the end of last month demonstrating the important financial and social benefits of pre-school and how it would give children a running start. It sites a Perry report where those who attended pre-school, the high-school graduation rate was 52 percentage 4255 points higher than those who did not attend. It also sites studies in Europe and the US that show those attending pre-school were, as adults, less likely to be unemployed, smokers, depressed or arrested. Children starting school after having attended pre-school, even if only part-time, had better language acquisition, pre-reading and early number concepts, they also demonstrated better levels of concentration, co-operation and peer sociability. In addition, they were less 4260 worried about starting school and showed less anti-social behaviour. Apart from the huge benefits to the child, pre-school benefits the parent who is able to work and generate income. The pre-school education must be of a high quality and I support the Department’s measures to set out and monitor educational standards. However, we need to provide suitable premises 4265 for the setting of pre-schools, as the distribution across the Island is patchy. In my own constituency the increase in demand has resulted in a lack of suitable spaces for pre-school. This is a problem that needs addressing across the Island. In summary, those that most benefit from pre-school are those that are disadvantaged and that is where this money is focused and, as a result of the evidence for the very positive impact 4270 of high quality pre-school education, I will support this motion and the necessary funding. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: If I mispronounced Mr Harmer’s name as ‘Hamer’ I hope he did not notice – but I did. 4275 A Member: He did!

The President: He did! Mr Cannan. 4280 Mr Cannan: Mr President – congratulations, by the way. (Laughter)

The President: Thank you, sir.

4285 Mr Cannan: I am desperate to call you Madam!

The President: I have been called worse! (Laughter)

Mr Cannan: It is the way you are looking at me. 4290 Mr President, I welcome this, but it is not progress I am afraid, Minister, it is catch up. Four years ago we had a very divisive debate in this Court (A Member: Yes.) over pre-school education; a debate focussed purely on the money, where the Minister and the Treasury ______1933 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Minister were telling us that we had to cut pre-school education, that we could no longer afford it, that we had to make all these savings and we ended up with what I think is a crazy voucher 4295 scheme – but there we go. And four years later on, here we are, back in this Hon. Court, before the end of this parliament, the Education Department now telling us how valuable pre-school educations is, (A Member: Hear, hear.) how necessary it is, how beneficial it is to disadvantaged children. Wonders of wonders! Four years it has taken them to get that message on board. Four years 4300 they were told the very words that the Hon. Member for Peel has just been talking about, and I appreciate he was not in the Chamber at this time but many of us argued along those lines that we should not cut pre-school education. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) Now, let me tell you the facts that I can see in my own constituency. I have one primary school in a very low income area in my constituency, where the families who predominantly 4305 feed that primary school are based in social housing, are low income families – hard-working, the vast majority of them, but nevertheless low income families. An estate that has become more transitional over the years, in that people come and go – less so perhaps from the local area, but nevertheless – I can tell the Hon. Court today that the evidence coming from that primary school is that higher numbers of children are not meeting the relevant attainment levels 4310 because they are not getting the level of pre-school education that they were, that was available to them in 2010, 2011 and 2012. That fact is being recognised and is dawning on the educational system, it is dawning on many actual local parents in the area that the reason why their children are not attaining is because, not only the social environment they are growing up in, but because they are not getting that early opportunity to advance themselves. 4315 Now, I absolutely welcome this, but I want to say to the Minister this: I would like to see more clarity and vision around pre-school education, particularly when it comes to disadvantaged areas or low income areas. I have not done – I have to confess – enough investigation into other areas, or spoken to other MHKs who perhaps have primary schools in these low income areas. Sorry, not disadvantaged, low income areas. But the facts are very clear 4320 to me. I have seen it first hand and it is absolutely vital that we now take a closer look at what we are doing with pre-school education; that we take the facts that the Minister is presenting before us today of the benefits, the benefits of pre-school education and we clarify our strategy because four years ago it was all about the money. We did not have the vision, and I would suggest in many ways it may be costing us more not investing in pre-school education because 4325 some of those children that I have been talking about in my area may well go on to struggle at secondary school, and may well be impacted throughout their careers. It is absolutely vital we get this right, Mr President. Perhaps the Minister might give me some reassurance today as to what other measures, as well as just increasing the allowances, are being undertaken to review the provision of pre-school education, the impact that the voucher 4330 system has had on those disadvantaged or low income areas; and what the vision is for the future, when it comes to delivering pre-school education; and of course whether the costs have been looked at in relation to the impact of people, of our children leaving secondary school early without pre-requisite qualifications, having had that lack of early opportunity. Thank you very much, Mr President. 4335 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I will be brief, Mr President. Obviously, I welcome the increase in hours; we can do nothing else – of course, the more 4340 hours the better. But it is still not a position where we can actually sit back and say, ‘Haven’t we done well?’ I disagree with Mr Harmer, in that I believe that pre-school education is equally important for all children. They all deserve it and they should all get it.

______1934 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Does the Department, though, have any future plans to further increase the hours, at least to 4345 bring us up to the average of other areas of the British Isles?

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

Mr Ronan: Thank you, Mr President. 4350 I was not going to get to my feet on this one. Obviously I support this motion. I am just on my feet really to answer Mr Cannan's concerns. He said at the time, ‘It was all about the money.’ No, it was not – far from it. It was about imbalance and fairness across the nursery system in our Island. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) I did not mention at the time, Mr President, but I was the only person in this Hon. Court who 4355 had a child in Government nursery at the time, and the lobbying I was getting from my constituents, I can assure you, was intense. But it was quite simple to me: Ballasalla and Castletown had nurseries; Port Erin, Port St Mary did not. It was quite clear: have we handled this situation right; could we have done it better? Of course we could, but the principle was right. 4360 It has taken far too long, in my opinion, to get to here, (A Member: Hear, hear.) but fairness – we are here now. We are in a better system; there is no doubt about it. The nursery education right across our Island we have got to get right. Right across the world – Japan, everywhere – they are ahead of us. We have got to get it right. I absolutely support the motion in front of us today. It is definitely a step in the right direction 4365 and I congratulate the Minister for Education for bringing it forward. But you have got to remember before the system was unbalanced and unfair; it was not about the money. Thank you, Mr President.

Mr Watterson: hear, hear. 4370 The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I rise, as much as anything, to remind Hon. Members that I am the chairman of a charity that 4375 provides pre-school education nurseries in the Isle of Man. I do not gain any financial benefit from that; in fact, I gain a huge amount of additional work and very little thanks, so I just wanted to put that on the record. I support a lot of the rhetoric that the Hon. Member for Michael was coming forward with today. It is vitally important that pre-school children get a quality pre-school education service. 4380 That has been obvious for many years to us all. I think the issue though – and this is where perhaps I would disagree with some of the rhetorical flourishes – was there was not a fair system across the Island; certainly in my current constituency, but not so much the new one. We had pre-school provision, but it was all privately funded. We had areas of deprivation in Port St Mary and Port Erin, in particular, but we did not have any Government support for those areas. 4385 I think that the problem has been it has taken us a little bit too long to get back to the position we should have been at, and I do very much support what the Hon. Member of Council, the Minister, is bringing forward today. This is a much better level that we are setting the bar at. It will allow children to attend maybe two or three sessions a week, rather than the current one or two sessions. If it is just one session then, quite frankly, the impact of the education that they 4390 get is very limited; it causes significant problems. In fact, it is almost counterproductive sending a child just for one day. Two or three days, on the other hand, allows the child to settle, get used to the principle of going into a classroom with a teacher and it helps them adjust when they go on to reception. So I think it is a very strong step in the right direction and you will not be too surprised to 4395 learn that I very much support the Minister. ______1935 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

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

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I agree with the previous speakers. 4400 One of the concerns was that – I know in my own constituency – there were a number of families that had children who were attending every day and, by bringing in the vouchers, they were actually disadvantaged and there was a notable decline in some of the social inclusion that they were used to when they were attending every day, that they were getting maybe one or two sessions a week. 4405 One of the other concerns that has been raised with me is that these vouchers when they go out, some of the parents are using them in blocks. I have spoken to the Minister about my concerns on this in the past. It does not help with the businesses to plan into the future, because they are getting a lot of people for one stint and there is a big gap in between. I hope the Minister will address that, because I think that is going to be the big downfall in it: if you are 4410 suddenly giving a tranche of pre-school education and then for the rest of the year there is nothing. It has to be spread out evenly across the year so they have got that social inclusion throughout the year, ready for when they go to the primary schools. I hope the Minister will address that problem.

4415 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Four brief questions. The first one is: does the Minister for Education hold a promise about this permanent budget transfer? Does this pre-school nursery voucher join the illustrious group 4420 with Manx Radio that actually has ring-fenced budget going forward in future years? The second question is about: I want to congratulate the Minister on bringing the universal and the means tested voucher amount closer together and does this signal actually a permanent erosion, a complete erosion, of that difference; and, if not, can the Minister offer a justification about why everybody does not need the same amount of pre-school education, given the case 4425 that has been made for it? The third point is about the Registration and Inspection Unit. I welcome the fact that a staff member from the Department of Education is working with the Registration and Inspection Unit, but does this not signal that we should have one registration and inspection unit across Government? I hope the Minister can assure us that he would encourage that continued 4430 working together to put together one registration and inspection unit across health, social care, education and any other similar professionals. Finally, obviously, we had a petition for redress of grievance from the pre-school campaigners, which mentioned two things. The first one was this voucher system, which has been addressed and I will be fully supporting it. The second one was Government trying to make 4435 sure that when new schools and new facilities were actually put in place, the Government would think about creating good quality, high quality, facilities so that other operators could provide privately inside using this voucher system for high quality pre-school provision? Would the Minister advise us whether that is now policy or whether that could become policy in the next administration? 4440 The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Cretney.

Mr Cretney: Yes, the Minister, in his intro, said that this was a step in the right direction and I certainly agree with that, I welcome it and I will be supporting it. What I would say though – and 4445 he and I have discussed this in another place previously – is I do think there remain issues where in areas of social deprivation, lower-waged areas or whatever, there is not the same incentive

______1936 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

for private providers to come in and make this provision. So I still think that that is a matter which is still up in the air somewhat. Final point: across the water it has been mentioned already in the United Kingdom – in 4450 England, in particular – the Conservative administration has a much more generous provision than what we are talking about even today, and I think that part of the reason for that is they wish to see as many people as possible with skills and talents involved in taking the economy forward; and I think we have lots of people here who, if they were able to take advantage of reasonable priced provision, would be able then to contribute even more to the economy in the 4455 Isle of Man, and that must be a good thing as well. So I welcome this as a step in the right direction.

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

4460 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I am glad that we have finally got the maturity by executive Government to start implementing what we wanted to do several years ago. I am sorry that sometimes personalities might get in the way of the children's welfare, as far as it being this Hon. Member that joined a Government that was supposed to be of national unity. I am somewhat alarmed at the remarks of the Hon. Member for Michael. This is the man that 4465 wants to privatise everything. We have got to cut down the public sector, we were supposed to be a Government of national unity, we were to make hard decisions as far as that is concerned; and that was on the back of reality that I was being told that we had the cost of something in the region of £1.6 million and a budget of £400,000. I am also alarmed, Eaghtyrane, if the Hon. Member is telling me that children who are 4470 deprived and in need in his constituency are not getting childcare; because under the original policy, which I developed, was that the resources as far as children who need this on a social basis would be ring-fenced; and I am very disappointed if that is not the case because I know I took great criticism from the former Member of Council and one of the deals in doing this was on the basis that people and children in need, for educational or social reasons, would be ring- 4475 fenced as far as the Department is concerned. So let's get back to the reality. What we are trying to do is to get services that can be done as effectively and efficiently done outside the public service. We talk about our … accounts; this was a place where we had the situation where the then Minister of Education investigated nursery education in 1992; it was a sham; they were not prepared to fund it and it was all right 4480 because predominantly it served well the situation as far as the Chelsea tractor brigade, more than it did for the ordinary people, especially when you allow for the fact that the scheme was five days a week, two and a half hours. A single parent who did not have support could not access this because she had to get off work in the middle of the morning; she had to be there at nine o’clock to drop her child off and it did not actually provide the service that we thought for 4485 the very people who needed it the most. So I would say that the Hon. Member for Michael needs to … Yes, he is right, he has not investigated this. When we had the situation in the likes of Douglas where we had schools between 30% and 38% where English was a second language, with no nursery facility, no hope of ever being able to give it … I know they are not the people that we need to be worried about, 4490 they are not the ones we want their votes from, (Interjections) but they are equally responsible and we need an inclusive society in this Island. Those children particularly need something. So when basically, going back to the 2010, we had 470 places, of which we had 840 children of that age group – 370 pre-school places, with no money to fund the five-day weekly session of two and a half hours. So I make no apologies for making the hard decision as far as that is 4495 concerned. The problems of entrapment, because we were LibVan and trying to embarrass us with trying to follow the situation in the UK, with stupid tuition fees and that, this was a way forward of creating smaller, more effective, efficient government that actually provides the service to the clientele and not to the employees. ______1937 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

So I absolutely welcome the proposal here. I am just sad that the Committee that I sat on, 4500 with Minister Gawne and Minister Robertshaw, has taken so long to come about; and I think that is more about trying to embarrass me. But the point is we are here and we have got here; that is the important thing. I will be supporting this today. One of the problems we also had – as the Minister may know as he was the Member for Peel at the time – for the children that were in the new estate, it went on priority of the children who 4505 were nearest the location of the pre-school. That was the criterion; nothing else came into it apart from that. So the nearer you were to the pre-school, you got … which was the Clothworkers’ in that case. So people on the other side of Peel who were in the council houses had little or no chance of getting a pre-school place, because that was the reality. I would say to Hon. Members what we need to do is work on this basis, of trying to get this 4510 extended into other areas. Hopefully the next administration will make sure that we will develop the progressive policy of the voucher scheme, trying to create the infrastructure where it can be done as effectively and as efficiently outside the school gates, as far as this issue is concerned. I am also glad to see that the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee recognised the hard decisions that we had to make with my integrity and the ’s being questioned 4515 as far as this issue, when blatantly the reality of what was going on was not suiting these children in the first place. I do hope that the Minister will be asking the Member for Michael if there are children who are socially deprived, education not behind, that he will be making sure that the facilities that we kept as far as that … that those children will not be put at a disadvantage; because that was 4520 never part of the situation. I have made my position quite clear. Hard decisions had to be made. I am glad to see that this is here. I am glad to see the increase in this situation. So many of those children who have English as a second language, that we want to make sure are in an inclusive society, that are not in a situation where we have inverted snobbism instead of snobbism, which is equally as 4525 corrosive as far as the Island is equally as corrosive as far as the Island is concerned … that we go forward. So let's not rewrite history. The history was that we ended up with a situation where 470 places were for 840 kids and in most of the deprived areas – the really deprived areas – there was no access to pre-school education. 4530 What I would like to ask the Minister is that we are going to see the increase next year. What I would like to see is that increase go on further as far as that is concerned, because we are going to have to face the reality that when we look at the real dependability on the state as far as employment is concerned, we have got to make sure that we do not end up with a situation where we have actually got more people working for Government than Ceauşescu managed – 4535 and he was supposed to be Communist Romania. The point is hopefully lessons have been learnt. I am really pleased that the Council of Ministers have had the maturity to stop being a dog in the manger and bring along these recommendations that should have been brought along two or three years ago. I also would like to say that what concerns me is when we talk about financial priorities. We 4540 made a stand as far as the Media Development Fund – £50 million; I believe it is now down to £36 million. It is about financial priorities and, in my opinion, what we have got now – and I really appreciate the Member for Castletown – if it is operated and funded properly, will be more effective, more efficient and more accessible to what is needed; because, Eaghtyrane, when people are working in different areas to where they are located for schools, it makes it 4545 impossible – especially if you go back to the old scheme of 9 to half 11 – to be able to access the pre-school facility. This gives the flexibility and gives the parent and the child the maximum opportunity to actually integrate into a pre-school which helps them both to be able to take part. No one in this Court does not recognise the value of pre-school education. What we were trying to do and 4550 what this proves is if it is funded right it will be much more effective, much more efficient, as far ______1938 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

as it is concerned, for both the taxpayer, for the child and the parent, so that they can actually take full accommodation of that. I just do hope that the Minister clarifies: when this came in, if there are people who should be getting pre-school education then there should be no excuses for that. That might help the 4555 Hon. Member for Michael – that there are some very seriously deprived areas that will get nothing under the old system. I welcome the proposal, even if it should have been a couple of years ago.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey. 4560 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. I am brought to my feet by the comments of the ex-leader of the Liberal Vannin Party, who obviously was very happy when he brought in the voucher system because it was a Liberal Vannin policy. 4565 As a Member of the Department of Education and pre-school being something that I have been preaching for, for many years – something I fought extremely hard for over the years, Mr President, to get into the schools of South Douglas, Anagh Coar and Manor Park, who have no pre-school any more thanks to the voucher system – I think my colleague, Mr Cretney, summed it up: there are social areas that need pre-school. 4570 I think what has been missing in this debate this afternoon is the importance of state-run pre- schools. (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) There is pre-school and state-run pre-school. State-run pre- school in social housing areas is so important. The Minister, Mr Corkish, myself and the Chief Executive have spent the last six months visiting a big majority of primary schools in this Island, talking to the heads; talking to the heads of places like Willaston school, Anagh Coar School, 4575 Ballasalla School, where there is no pre-school anymore. (Interjection) Where there are pre-schools outside there is no communication between the child and the school before they start school. What is missing these days is the fact a pre-school in a school gives the head of the school, the teachers, 12 months to assess the child who is coming to start school. That has gone! The voucher system has seen to that, because everything is independent. 4580 Even if the pre-school is established within the school – like the Clothworkers’; it is in a unit in the yard – there is no communication between the pre-school and the school. That is where the child is missing out. I quite agree: it might have helped out out-of-town schools to get vouchers; I think the vouchers system is great, but it is not the be-all and end-all. The Department knows my view on 4585 this over and over again, and I am glad to report that we are looking at this going forward for the future. Pre-school in the Isle of Man – I am sorry, Mr President – has lost out big style because of the voucher system. Our youth in deprived areas – in social housing areas – have lost out big style, because of the voucher system. 4590 So before everybody jumps up and down and says what a wonderful system it is, go and talk to the heads of these schools, because they do not agree with you; they know that they have not seen these children, they have not assessed these children before they come in and start school. Before the voucher system came in, for the schools that were running pre-school, they could 4595 work their budgets out for the year, they knew which children needed extra tuition, they knew how to focus their budget going forward, because they knew these children before they started school. They do not know that any more. They do not even know that within the schools that are let out for running pre-schools, because they are a separate business, they have got nothing to do with the school, Mr President, and it might as well be 500 yards up the road. 4600 So, please, yes, this voucher system is very good and it is probably very good for lots of areas that were not getting pre-schools before, but it is certainly not the be-all and end-all. We

______1939 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

certainly, in South Douglas, where I am, have lost three pre-schools since the introduction of this, and two of those schools are in social housing areas. With that, I think the Minister knows exactly where I am coming from. Please think twice 4605 before you say how wonderful the voucher system has been; it has not. Our children’s education is the most important thing here. I think I will leave it at that, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Robertshaw. 4610 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr President. I am brought to my feet by a number of comments various Members have made, but I would like to congratulate the Minister on bringing this forward. It is a step, but I think we all recognise it is just a step, in the right direction. 4615 I would concur with the Member for Castletown, the Minister for DEFA who said that it was a postcode lottery before and that Education found itself in a very difficult position. The voucher scheme can work if enough money is put behind it (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) and that is the crucial thing. I absolutely concur with the Member for South Douglas, who said that primary schools in socially deprived areas or public sector housing areas perhaps did have a 4620 particularly damaging impact as a result of us withdrawing nursery care within schools. My daughter is actually a teacher at Willaston and I followed with great care and interest what was happening; and, yes, that did happen. So, to my mind, it was always a question of getting as much funding into the voucher system as quickly as we could, and I regret that it has taken the time that it has. 4625 What I would like to do though is challenge the Member for – do I now say ? – (A Member: No.) (Interjections) Douglas West, Mr Thomas, where he wants us to move away from means testing. Mr President, I just remind that particular Member that a significant amount of the funding that we have thus far got came about because we started means testing Child Benefit, which was not popular, but to my mind the point that we did it, it was very 4630 important to make sure that funding went across to the voucher system. The Treasury Minister will vouch for me when I say I have made his life pretty miserable from time to time over arguing for additional funds; and he always said, ‘No, we cannot have any until we know where we stand with VAT.’ (Interjection and laughter) But to give him his due, I had said we needed another half a million, and here we have another £740- … £500,000, I said, and in fact we have £740,000 4635 now. But it must keep coming forward. We must get to a situation where nursery care, early years education following the Nutbrown concept is not a postcode lottery; it is there for all and every child who needs it. So I wish the Minister well. I do hope, though, that he does keep the separation between the standard and the higher rate, because there is a need to specifically target this to certain 4640 children and I do hope he continues to recognise that. Thank you, Mr President.

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

4645 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I remember the debate we had here a few years ago. I remember how acrimonious it was with regard to this. I remember the trouble it caused and all the rest of it. And although I will be supporting this, no problem, I fully support the observations made by the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey. He is absolutely spot-on in what he said, in many regards. 4650 In some ways, following on from that acrimonious debate, we did miss out, on the lines that he said. But we missed out on something else too, Eaghtyrane, because at the time, and prior to that, there was a policy notion that pre-school in schools would be rolled out across the Isle of Man. ______1940 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

A Member: Hear, hear. 4655 Mr Karran: And that would be great, wouldn’t it?

Mr Henderson: Now, that puts a whole different slant on things. However, we are where we are. 4660 What I would like to point out, though, is that having a pre-school in a state school is not just good for the teaching staff so they can make their assessments. What we have missed the point on here – and not just the social housing areas, which is absolutely correct to mention – it is the children themselves, Eaghtyrane. Because children who attend a pre-school within a school have made the big leap, if you like, (A Member: Hear, hear.) into the school environment already. 4665 They are not stressed going to a new building full of strangers that they do not know. They have already built up a cohort of little friends, colleagues and partners in crime, if I can put it like that. (Interjection by Mr Corkish) Moving into the education system from pre-school then is not a big stressful foot forward for them and it proved invaluable in that process, as I have witnessed many times whilst that was in operation. The children who progressed from pre-school into 4670 main school, from a pre-school in a school, if you like, progressed very well and did not have to suffer the stressful situation of leaving a private institution somewhere, and it could be a couple of miles away, and being implanted into a completely strange environment. And that is something I think we need to think about and make a note upon that as we move forward down this direction, Eaghtyrane. 4675 The President: I call on Mr Hall.

Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr President. Just a few brief comments that I would like to add. 4680 Obviously this is a very important topic, pre-school education and I would like the Minister if he can comment on his views going forward, I find it rather odd that we have pre-school education which is then in a private setting, which is overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department of Education appears to be going to be somewhat behind and is not really that much involved in terms of the oversight of pre-school nurseries. I do find that a 4685 little bit odd. Perhaps whether he has got plans, actually where the educational element from his Department, to get more of a steer in these nurseries in order to guarantee universal quality across the private nurseries. Because what the voucher system does not do is that it does not guarantee (A Member: Standards.) quality and standards across the private nurseries. I think that does need to be 4690 addressed because, as the father of a young son, my son has been to nursery over the last few years, there are variations in quality in nurseries. There are some that are exceptional and there are some that are not quite the same. I think that needs to be looked at because it does not guarantee that. And I think as a by-product of the voucher system, which has been problematic – and I know 4695 this from it being told to me from parents at schools – is that, of course, you still have an element here of the haves and the have-nots because those parents that have the financial means to send their children to a good private nursery go there full-time, and then a very inadequate amount. Therefore you end up when they go to school and start school, that there is that element of the haves and have-nots where there are many children who have been 4700 afforded the opportunity to have full-time nursery and then others that just simply have either not been exposed to it at all or had very limited exposure to it, and of course, right from day one you have got a huge gap and a huge gulf between children, which of course then is left to the primary school teachers, who have a rather significant challenge in my view because of the differences when they arrive. I suspect it probably takes quite some time and a huge challenge 4705 for the reception teachers to actually bring those children that have not had the same quality ______1941 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

and exposure up to the standards – if that is ever achieved when you look at the professional evidence that is there. So I do not think when you talk about fairness or balancing and inequality, however you look at it, it is an inequality. Yes, you give a voucher, but that only buys you very limited amounts. I 4710 note that in the explanation here, averaging £4.50, in my view that appears to be rather on the light side, if anything. So there are lots of challenges. Then of course, as the Minister knows, because Mr Houghton and myself … there have also been over the past few years that materialised, some significant staffing issues within the private nurseries that became apparent, which the Members and the Minister know that Mr 4715 Houghton and I took the lead to go and try and address. We were up in the Department of Education, which I do thank the Minister for the way he looked into the matter, and I was left as far as I know … Ig he can provide an update regarding that if there is anything further to all that, from our meeting when we were up in Education, to try and address those issues, with the private nurseries being somewhat suffocated from being able to recruit and maintain the 4720 qualified staff that they actually need; because it was heading towards, I think it is fair to say, a bit of a crisis point as a result of what happened in 2012. I just hope that that has maintained and it has been largely addressed. But I do hear that it is still a problem, and of course there have been issues where they have left from the private nursery settings and then they have gone over and they have now been recruited by his very 4725 own Department in Reception classes. So the nurseries are never able to really keep on top of their recruitment to an acceptable standard. That is just a few pointers. I am not going to stand here and go over old ground, but there are some significant problems and I do not think that even just by giving money as a voucher and thinking that that is going to basically sort the issue, throwing more money at a voucher system, 4730 that is just a very little, tiny part of the actual issue. There are far more widespread … and words I note when I have been listening to some people here, using the word ‘child care’ in my opinion, in my view, it is not child care. This is about pre-school and it is the word ‘education’, which is where I go back to my point about saying that I think that the Department of Education should be equally involved, if not more involved in Social Care, because it is Social Care that go round 4735 and look at it all. I think the Minister needs to go away and for his Department in the next administration, because I do think that the private nurseries would welcome a bit more input from the Department of Education, as well as of course from the Department of Health and Social Care. So those are the points that I am going to make on that and if the Minister wishes to 4740 comment on some of those points, I would very much welcome his comments.

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

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 4745 Can I start by thanking all Members for their contributions, and also my seconder. I feel, listening to the comments that we have had this afternoon, that I am going to get most people’s support. I am not sure about those that have not spoken, but I feel I will get the support, but I will wait to see that, I will not take it for granted, but I do thank you and I thank you for the comments, and if I miss any I will pick them up again afterwards and come back to 4750 the Hon. Members. I have to start off by saying we are in a much better place now than we were four years ago, and for that I have to thank Treasury, obviously. I remember Mr Robertshaw up in CoMin banging the desks literally, and saying we need more money for this, and he was right when he gave Treasury stick and I do thank him for that because I know he has been on the case about 4755 this. Also, as was mentioned, Mr Hall, Mr Harmer, Mr Houghton and Mr Boot who came to see us. People are worried about this, people do talk to us about this and we have been taking ______1942 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

comments on board. In fact, Mr Malarkey, while I might not agree with everything he said this afternoon he has got an opinion about his constituency and what is happening or not 4760 happening, we take that on board. It probably will not be down to me to make any more new policies in the Department, but the new Minister will look at what is going on and how the Department will deal with … is it pre-schools in our schools or do we leave it private? To try and move back would be a heck of a step, it would be a lot of hard work to do. A lot of work would need undoing and you have obviously got people out there in the private sector doing that work, 4765 so we need to work with those, and maybe there is a mixture there to be had. Can I just start off by saying, Mr Harmer, thank you for his support and indeed the meetings that we have had over this in the past and thanks for the added information that he has given to us. I know he has been looking for stuff. Mr Cannan, I was a bit surprised by some of his comments but not all of them because we 4770 had a discussion yesterday. I am aware of what he is saying and where he is coming from. I will have a conversation with him again shortly with some of my staff because some of his comments are not quite right about the attainment of the schools. Sometimes we get taken in by situations that are going on, and we listen to parents and we do not always get the full story. And while I will not go on any more about that particular case, there are two, if not three sides 4775 to every story and I will be happy to put those to him. But certainly, the attainment I think is probably not as bad as he was making out in that school, and I would be happy to show him that. There is a lot of good work going on and our staff are working closely with the pre-schools. I think Mr Hall was just saying while we do not go into the pre-schools as such if they want advice 4780 we are quite happy to give it. We work with the DHSC on the inspections; we have an inspector that does go around with them. The legislation at the moment does not allow us to have our own team to inspect private pre-schools, that is the reason we have got. There will be a change of legislation I would think within the next year, and that is what is needed. And yes, we should be doing it probably more than DHSC, if not certainly as much as, and that ought to be an equal 4785 team, I quite agree with you there. (A Member: Hear, hear.) As I said, Mr Cannan was going on about the vision, is it right or can we go back? I do not think we can go back but I think the vision for the future has to change and we can provide more. Yes it is good, 97% take-up on the voucher system, the more money we can have, and again that comes down to what we can afford, and it is down to what we can afford. The more 4790 money that we can have the more we can get towards that 30 hours like the UK provide or the 20 hours that the Channel Islands are doing. Yes, we are not the best, but I do suggest that what we are providing in the pre-schools is good. It can always be better, everything can be better whether it be primary schools or secondary schools the results, but we do provide a good service in the pre-schools, I believe. 4795 Mr Singer mentioned the future plans. Again, as I just said, that comes down to the Treasury and how much more money we can have. The Department will keep asking for more money, because we can always – like my colleague down in Health – spend it, absolutely. And health and education are probably the most important things that we have to look after. And I would say that as the Minister for Education and Children, but I firmly believe that. 4800 Mr Ronan went on about fairness across the Island with the old system – question mark. The old system was not right. It definitely was not right, it needed changing. I personally, and Mr Karran will not like me for saying this, if I had been the Minister from the start, I would have done it the other way around. I would have done student awards first (A Member: Hear, hear.) and had a look at doing the pre-schools a year later and given himself a year more to think about 4805 it. We might have been in a different position. He was the Minister at the time and that was his decision. I would have done it the other way round I know that for a fact, having learnt what I have learnt in the last four years.

______1943 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

But the principle is right now with the voucher system, I believe, partly. It is a good system, it does work. It is better than what we had but it is not perfect, but we are moving in the right 4810 direction. Mr Gawne, I will be careful what I say because he has obviously got an interest as he said over there, and I thank him for declaring that interest. But again, he said it is a strong step in the right direction and he supported that. We need to watch the quality that is provided in those pre-schools and I know where he is coming from with that, and he will say that he does provide 4815 quality through his, as do the others, and I have already said that before I said this, but we need to make sure that that quality is there. If people are paying for it they should get that quality. Mr Thomas, the promised budget, again I cannot promise that. That comes down to what we have to spend from Treasury, if they will give us any more. Hopefully we can still increase this. The Department will keep pushing for that, unless another Minister decides otherwise. ‘Closer 4820 together’, I wrote down here – is that working closing together? (Interjection) Sorry, that is right, yes, the two levels. My colleague, Minister Watterson, asked me the other week about the two different levels. It has come a lot closer. In 2012-13 when they started out it was literally two hours a week in the lower level, if you like, and six and a half hours in the upper level. We are now down to 10 hours and 12½ hours, so that is much closer. I do not know whether there 4825 needs to be that difference between the two levels though. If we get to a certain level, and whether that be 20 hours or 30 hours, that should be enough for everybody, so we are not at that level yet, but I appreciate, I think it was Mr Robertshaw that said, that we need to keep that difference there. I am not sure if that is correct, but once we get to a certain level and everybody should be on the same. But we are certainly better off now, much better off than we were. 4830 I mentioned about the change in legislation needed for the registration inspections, that will come, that needs to come. Regarding the petitions on the vouchers and the new schools with the vouchers I am not sure about yet. The new schools with facilities, that will be a decision for Tynwald whether it wants to go down that route. Obviously, it has a huge cost implication providing extra classroom space for 4835 that. But again, it is an investment in the future, in our students, our children, our future. Mr Cretney, I thank him for his comments, and his support. Again, he went on about the providers in certain areas, the same as Mr Malarkey, obviously they are from the same area and again, he made that comparison between us and the UK provision. That is being looked at and will come forward again in the future, I am sure. 4840 Mr Karran, again, supportive, some of his comments I did not agree with. I was not too happy with some of them but they are his comments and, as a former Minister that made some of the decisions regarding this, that was his decision and he will live with that. It is all about the financial priorities, I wrote down here, and that is right, it is about what we can have in the future to spend on this. 4845 Mr President, I think I have covered most of those, although I have not picked up on one or two Members. If I have missed them … sorry, Mr Hall, I think I have covered most of his. Pre- school overseen by DHSC, but we will be looking at that in the future with the legislation. Mr Speaker, (A Member: Mr President!) Mr President – I knew I would do it! (Laughter) We are in a much better place than we were four years ago, sir. We are moving in the right 4850 direction. It is not perfect but we are covering much more of the Island, many more of the students involved and long may that continue, sir. I beg to move.

Mr Cregeen: Mr President, can the Minister just confirm my points regarding ensuring this is 4855 spread out over the year, rather than in blocks, because –

The Minister: Sorry, I believe that is down to be dealt with, yes.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you. ______1944 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

4860 Mr Hall: Just on another point, can I just clarify the point –

The President: Mr Hall, the debate is over, I am very sorry. I put the question as set out at Item 7, in the name of the Minister for Education and Children. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

8. Strategic Sea Services Agreement – Report and recommendations – Debate commenced

The Minister for Infrastructure to move:

That Tynwald receives the Report entitled ‘Liverpool Landing Stage/Strategic Sea Services Agreement’ [GD No 2016/0045] and approves the following recommendations included within that Report such that Tynwald: (a) Endorses the eight strategic principles as being as follows: (i) High quality sea transport is a critical element in serving international trade and services must be to appropriate international standards. (ii) Reliable sea transport which has a proven record of operating safely at all times of the year in the challenging Irish Sea environment is a key requirement and has a critical impact on the quality of life and cost of living on the Island. (iii) Long term arrangements that clarify future services and costs promote economic stability and increase certainty for businesses and consumers. (iv) Direct and reliable sea transport service links to the main freight and passenger ports in adjacent jurisdictions must be retained to ensure rapid and direct access to centres of population and distribution, rail and trunk road infrastructure. (v) Reduced duration of crossings and lower costs of travel encourage more frequent short stay travel, reduced business costs and faster delivery times. (vi) The size of ferries and timing and frequency of sailings must provide sufficient capacity for the fluctuating daily demands of passengers and freight customers while recognising the operational constraints of . This includes the provision of additional capacity for planned tourism events including the TT and other predictable short term seasonal peaks in demand. (vii) High quality terminals and vessels are a crucial element in providing prominent gateways to the Isle of Man, ensuring passenger comfort and creating a good first impression. This includes investing in public areas, customer service, customer information, and customer welcome. (viii) Government should work with stakeholders to encourage appropriate investment in the Isle of Man economy and Douglas harbour development through: marketing activity; protecting the Isle of Man's shipping lanes; supporting suitable expansion at strategically important ports; supporting improved transport links within the United Kingdom to the North West of England; promoting stability in Isle of Man maritime. (b) agrees that these principles should form the basis of a new Strategic Sea Services Policy; (c) requires the Department to present the new Strategic Sea Services Policy for Tynwald approval in November 2016; (d) supports the Department spending a sum not exceeding £3.5 million for the purchase of a site at Princes Half-Tide Dock, Liverpool; (e) endorses the Department’s preferred option of seeking an open tender for a design and build contract to develop the facility but on the basis that no work should begin on

______1945 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

developing the facility until agreement has been reached with a ferry service provider to operate from the facility; (f) approves the Department negotiating a draft legal agreement to cover the development of a new Strategic Sea Services Agreement with the IOMSPCo, subject to a requirement that the Department brings the proposed legal agreement back to Tynwald for final approval and (g) requires the Department to seek further concessions from IOMSPCo in relation to break clauses and the financial transparency of the company in the final Strategic Sea Services Agreement. 4865 The President: We turn to Item 8, Sea Services Agreement in the name of the Minister for Infrastructure. I call Mr Gawne.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 4870 I am sure you agree with me that this motion is one of the most important Items to be considered by this Hon. Court. At the outset I would express my regrets that it falls on the Order Paper for the last sitting of this administration. Knowing that the July Tynwald before an election can often be a colourful and lively affair, I can absolutely assure you that I would have preferred to avoid bringing this important matter before Tynwald today. 4875 However commercial imperatives, I believe, require that Tynwald give a general view on the linked issues of a new landing stage and a possible replacement for the Linkspan User Agreement. The Department is seeking Tynwald’s support for some principles and proposed further work. but please accept my absolute assurance that if Tynwald supports the Department’s proposal 4880 today, the Department will seek further Tynwald approval for the proposed new Strategic Sea Services Policy and the detail of the proposed new facility in Liverpool and most importantly Tynwald approval will be required if a new Strategic Sea Services Agreement is to be agreed. The motion today in essence requests Tynwald’s approval in principle, but does not prevent a future Tynwald from rejecting the final proposals once the detail has been worked up. 4885 I will repeat that: ‘Tynwald’s approval in principle, but does not prevent a future Tynwald from rejecting the final proposals once the details have been worked up’. I think that is a really important point for me to stress. So what we are asking for in effect is approval in principle to go ahead and work up the final detail, because quite frankly, there is an awful lot of work involved in that, and we would not want to engage in all that work if Tynwald was not of a mind to 4890 support any of what we are suggesting. I am asking today for your in-principle support in three main areas. Firstly, in agreeing some broad principles for the future of our strategic sea links so that a policy can be developed; secondly, for your support for the purchase of a long-term lease on a piece of land in central Liverpool that we hope to be able to use to build a new ferry terminal; and thirdly for your 4895 agreement to allow the Department to enter negotiations with the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company in respect of its offer for a new contract to provide ferry services for this Island. I should like to thank all of those who have helped the Department reach this point. Of course, I have had the benefit of the advice of the Members of my Department, but I have also had the support of a Strategic Sea Services Working Group which brought together not only 4900 other Members of Tynwald, but also representatives from TravelWatch Isle of Man and from the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce, and of course also had the advice of officers from across Government. I realise of course that not every member of that working group supports all the conclusions the Department has reached, but I am grateful for all the contributions made and all the advice 4905 given. Furthermore, I should like to thank those members of the public who responded to our comprehensive survey and helped us identify what the people using our ferry services actually ______1946 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

wanted. So there were a total number of responses of 1,247, of which 1,053 were from Isle of Man residents, and 194 off-Island residents. The full consultation feedback has been available 4910 for some time and is available on our website. The eight principles listed in the Report share a common theme. That theme is recognition that people and goods have been moved between this Island and adjacent islands by sea for thousands of years and that good strategic sea links are almost certainly going to be essential for the social and economic wellbeing of our Island for many, many years to come. The eight 4915 principles propose strategic sea services that are high quality, that are safe and reliable and that meet the social and economic needs of our community. We also want stable long-term arrangements that provide good fares and good timings, and that connect with ports in adjacent islands that are themselves well connected to the infrastructure needed for onward travel and distribution. 4920 Hon. Members, I realise that many of these principles could be debated in detail but on their own they are not enough. Whilst the Report’s first recommendation is that Tynwald endorses the eight strategic principles given in the Report, recommendation 2 proposes that they form the basis of a new Strategic Sea Services Policy, and recommendation 3 that that policy is brought back to Tynwald for approval in November 2016. 4925 I would very much hope that Members can support these recommendations so that this Hon. Court can consider a full policy statement in November. In doing so, Tynwald will have a clear policy on which to base future decisions on the proposed Liverpool ferry terminal and any future Strategic Sea Services Agreement. Turning now to Liverpool, the Report provided makes it clear that the facility in Liverpool that 4930 was originally funded with support of a loan approved by this Hon. Court is now at the end of its safe operational life. The Steam Packet’s lease with the owner, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, ends this year. The owner is prepared to undertake the essential works required to keep the landing stage afloat for a few more years if there is a realistic chance of a new facility being developed elsewhere on its Port of Liverpool estate. Hon. Members will know that the City 4935 of Liverpool is progressing the development of a new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head and the Prince’s Parade site that the landing stage now occupies, so it is clear to me that we have to move. Hon. Members, the Report circulated and presented to you lists a number of ports within reasonable distance of the Island that could be considered as an alternative, if Liverpool were no 4940 longer available. Many of the possible ports lack the facilities needed; many are subject to tidal restrictions. In practical terms, only Heysham, Liverpool and Holyhead provide the facilities that are needed. Heysham is clearly already served. Holyhead is in many ways an excellent port but it is a good distance from the main UK motorway network, and is not near a major city. I am not keen on moving Liverpool services to Holyhead and neither are the respondents to the 4945 consultation undertaken by the Department late last year. Perhaps the most consistently championed other location is Birkenhead. Whilst it is close to the Liverpool landing stage as the crow flies, foot passengers in particular are faced with a difficult journey for onward travel. The current berth is not suitable for a fast craft and is only available when not in use by its existing operator, Stena Line. Having considered the pros and 4950 cons of a development in Birkenhead, the Department has concluded that Liverpool offers the better location and a location preferred by the Manx public. Hon. Members will be aware that in recent weeks and months, I have been somewhat engaged in trying to better understand what the people actually think about certain issues. So in an endeavour to assist the people in getting their views over, I had a conversation yesterday 4955 with the organiser of a petition that is asking for us to go to Fleetwood. I told the gentleman I would read out some comments if he provided them to me, so these are they. This is from Steve England, who has organised a petition on whether or not the boat should go to Fleetwood. He says:

______1947 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

‘I represent 10,120 supporters, 2,530 e-petition signatories on Change.org, approximately 3,000 in hard copy signatures from across the Island, United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and France, plus support from UK MPs/council leaders. Numbers grow daily. So why have I asked to present this for reading in today’s sitting? In his words, he thinks we have a case to present. I am respectfully asking Tynwald to be open to and equally consider public voice – 10,120 voices want the Isle of Man Government to consider Fleetwood, a port that was mentioned once only, compared to six times for Liverpool, in the public consultation dated 28th September to 9th November 2015. The Isle of Man Steam Packet provided sailings from Fleetwood for many years, never made any public comments on the issues of silting, tidal conditions or indeed access or port egress. Why Fleetwood? Douglas to Fleetwood takes 94 minutes, Heysham two hours, and Liverpool two hours 45 minutes. Which would you rather take?’

So those are some of the comments anyway, from those who would wish us to go to 4960 Fleetwood. Our own survey demonstrated that less than 5% ticked the other box, of which Fleetwood, some Scottish ports, Holyhead, were also mentioned. So the petition which specifically asks about Fleetwood is not in line with what we found when we did our consultation. 4965 Also in terms of Fleetwood, as Hon. Members will have read in the Report, the Department has considered Fleetwood, but in essence, summarising what we have said, marshalling areas are available, but there are no passenger facilities. The port suffers from severe tidal access problems, which would make running a scheduled service extremely difficult. It is likely that Fleetwood will be developed to serve the offshore wind market. The port is situated on the edge 4970 of Morecambe Bay and has a trunk road link to the M55 motorway, so it is not ideal for us. We believe that it takes a crossing time of two hours for the fast craft, unlike the 94 minutes suggested by the Fleetwood petitioners. So that is that bit of democracy or direct voice from the people out of the way. Turning to the specifics of the site at Prince’s Half-Tide Dock, I am seeking Hon Members’ 4975 agreement that the Department expends a sum not exceeding £3.5 million to purchase a 236- year lease on a site on which a ferry terminal can be built. I have made it clear in the Report that the construction works will not start until a suitable ferry service provider has been identified. It is clearly not in the Island’s interests to expend a potentially significant further sum until we are sure there is a long-term use for the facility. 4980 Of course, I would make it clear that I very much hope that there is a long-term use for this facility. However, in commercial negotiations, outcomes are unlikely to be guaranteed, and I can advise Hon. Members that I have instructed my officers to ensure that any agreement to buy this site is framed in such a way that the site can be returned to its owner at no cost to Government. The proposed purchase is for a 236-year lease. This is the balance of the lease held 4985 by the Peel Group, which owns the site and the adjacent Liverpool Waters development area. Hon. Members have had the benefit of briefings on the detail of this issue, as well as the early circulation of this Report, so I will now summarise all the factors that in my view make a persuasive case for purchasing this site. However, I think it is important to say that if we agree that sea links between our Island and the United Kingdom are critical for our social and 4990 economic welfare, and that this will remain the case for the foreseeable future, then the security of that service becomes of key importance. We already own the harbour at Douglas. If we can control a harbour in the United Kingdom then we put ourselves into the position of controlling both ends of the route and then simply needing a service provider to cross between the two ports. In that sense, the ability to buy this 4995 land is a real opportunity for our long-term economic stability. The site is a short distance nearer the mouth of the Mersey than the Pier Head location. Liverpool City Council has undertaken to provide an improved highway infrastructure to ensure that the site benefits from good access to the main roads network. The Mayor has also undertaken to help ensure that the bus stop that lies a few tens of 5000 metres from the site is properly served at the times of sailings. The development proposals will

______1948 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

include a linkspan that will be rated for heavy freight. Whilst our development contract is likely to restrict the regular use of the site for unaccompanied freight or freight vessels, coaches will be able to use the site. The discussions held with the Peel Group have established the principle that the Peel Group 5005 will allow freight through the site in the event that other freight facilities under its control, such as Heysham, are unusable. It is the case that the site is about ten minutes’ walk from the current landing stage; but the distance is very similar to that between the Sea Terminal and the War Memorial. Good facilities would be provided for taxis and those dropping off or collecting foot passengers. 5010 Many Hon. Members will have seen the outline drawings prepared by an architect on our behalf. Whilst the specification and design of any ferry terminal will only be agreed when the Department goes to tender for a design and build contractor, it is very much my hope that the new facility will act as a gateway to the Isle of Man that provides a positive view of our national identity and economic success, as well as providing good facilities for all those using the ferry 5015 service. Finally, I have heard some confusion caused by the name of this location. The proposed berth is not affected by tidal conditions. The name of the site refers to the historic dock yard use. The berth will be in the river itself, much as it is now. I very much hope that Hon. Members agree with me that the opportunities to secure a site for a ferry terminal in the heart of Liverpool, and 5020 at the edge of the UK’s Northern Powerhouse, is an opportunity that we would not want to miss and I ask Hon. Members to support expenditure of no more than £3.5 million for the purchase of this site. The Department would wish to see a high quality terminal being provided but will adopt an open tender for a design and build contract, once agreement has been reached for the use of 5025 the site with a ferry service provider. Hon. Members, that covers recommendations 4 and 5 – or I think they are (d) and (e) in the Order Paper. So I turn now to the third section of the Report which deals with the issue of a replacement for the current Linkspan User Agreement. Most Hon. Members took the opportunity to attend a presentation given by senior officers of 5030 the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Ltd about the proposed new agreement that it has offered to the Department. Many Members will have taken up the Company’s invitation to discuss the proposals in more detail with its senior officers. Other Members will have attended my Department’s workshop briefing and update briefing and, of course, I hope that all Members have had the chance to read the detailed Report before us today. 5035 Despite all the detail presented, I am not – I repeat not – asking Hon. Members to approve a new agreement today. I realise that this is a very major step and that most Hon. Members have concerns about making a decision on this issue in the last sitting of this Court before an election to the House of Keys. I do however feel that the Steam Packet’s offer has some significant merit and realise that, as a commercial company, the Steam Packet has to make decisions about its 5040 future. The offer is time limited and the Company has requested a full response by the end of the year. There is much in the offer that Hon. Members of this Court and members of our community will welcome. The purchase of two new vessels is perhaps the highlight, but from a strategic point of view, the contractual requirement to provide a backup vessel is probably more 5045 important. In terms of previous concerns, safeguards on company debt and transfer of ownership are key. The return of a frequent traveller discount scheme, alongside the extension of the existing fare controls to cover special offers will be welcomed by the travelling public. A profit sharing agreement will also be of benefit. Having taken advice from both professional infrastructure financiers, from the Strategic Sea 5050 Services Working Group and from officers across Government, I concluded that the offer should be brought before this Court for its consideration, but at this stage this should be for agreement to continue negotiations to see whether the Steam Packet’s offer can be worked up into a ______1949 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

detailed agreement worthy of Tynwald’s support. My recommendation and motion is that this Court approves the Department negotiating the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company’s offer to 5055 the point of a draft legal agreement before returning for final approval of this Court, but that this is done on the basis that further concessions must be secured in respect of break clauses in the contract and the financial transparency of the company. I will reiterate my firm commitment today that any approval given at this stage does not tie the hands of a future Tynwald, but merely allows us to further explore the opportunity presented by the Steam Packet’s offer. 5060 Hon. Members, the Liverpool Landing Stage and the replacement of the Linkspan User Agreement have been two of the most challenging issues that I have faced in my time as Minister for Infrastructure. They are also two of the most important we will face, as they will significantly impact on the stability and cost of people and goods travelling to and from our Island. 5065 And because this is such an important issue, I have taken the view that it is important again to ask the public what they think. I did give a commitment that I would read out the results of a public poll that was undertaken on Democracy.im and I will do that at this point. There were 383 users of that site. Only 107 votes were cast in relation to recommendation (d) of the Strategic Sea Services Report in favour of buying local site, of which 71% were in 5070 favour, 26% against and the rest abstained. In relation to the design and build tender, 67% in favour, 27% against and the rest abstained. In relation to drafting a new agreement with Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, 42% in favour, 48% against and the rest abstained. In relation to negotiating further concessions from the Isle of Man Steam Packet, 61% in 5075 favour, 32% against and 7% abstained. That says that at least three of the things that we have suggested, the public seem to support – but I should say, there are only relatively small numbers of people actually engaged in the process. Hopefully, this is the first step on the long journey to actually get people more engaged in direct democracy. Certainly, that would be my optimistic view. 5080 You will laugh at this bit! I could have spoken at great length about the details of both issues and would thank Hon. Members for participating in the various briefing sessions and for taking the time to read the lengthy Report that is before you. These are key strategic decisions for the future of our Island. Whilst I would very much hope to secure your endorsement for all the recommendations 5085 contained in the motion, I make it clear that further decisions will have to be made by the Members who sit in this Hon. Court in the next administration. The proposed Sea Services policy will be drafted on the lines of the principles put to you and brought before Tynwald Court for approval. The funding for the Liverpool ferry terminal to replace the existing landing stage is for the 5090 purchase of the land only. Any capital projects to develop the facilities on site will have to be brought before this Court for approval of any capital expenditure, if there is to be any. The proposed new Strategic Sea Services Agreement to replace the Linkspan User Agreement will be drafted into a legal agreement and again brought before this Court for approval. Hon. Members, I end with a plea. If you are uncomfortable with aspects of what is being 5095 proposed, please say so in the debate. If you feel strongly enough, put down amendments so that we can test whether your views have the support of Tynwald and if they have, the Department can act as required to fulfil any additional suggestions. Hon. Members, I believe that the proposals the Department has put before you today are very much in the best interests of the people we represent and I urge you to support them. That 5100 said, I firmly believe that such important matters as this should be decided by Tynwald, so I am seeking not only your thoughts on the Department’s proposals but also your suggestions as to how these proposals can be improved. I very much hope that Hon. Members will support me and the future of our Island through this motion today. I beg to move. ______1950 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

5105 The President: Do I have a seconder? Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Now, Hon. Members, I propose that we take a break and reconvene at 5.45 – 5110 quarter to six by the Court clock.

The Court adjourned at 5.15 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 5.45 p.m.

Strategic Sea Services Agreement – Report and recommendations – Debate continued

The President: Please be seated, Hon. Members. We are on Item 8, Sea Services Agreement, the motion has been duly moved and seconded. 5115 Can I call the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President, I have an amendment –

The President: An amendment – is it circulated, Mrs Beecroft? 5120 Mrs Beecroft: Yes, thank you very much. There are two amendments and I was going to table these to replace (f) and (g) on the Order Paper, but I do think it is right, as Minister Gawne said, the Tynwald Members are able to vote on all the different options so that the Department has a clear steer of actually what Tynwald 5125 Members want and what they think is the right thing to do. If you look at (f) on the Order Paper it would seem to refer to two different agreements: the first is the draft legal agreement to cover the development of a new strategic sea services agreement with the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company; and the second one is presumably the agreement that is the new strategic sea services agreement. It seems a bit like a heads of terms 5130 agreement with another more detailed document flowing from that. I have no problem with a document being drawn up for agreement by Tynwald in the future that covers what we want to have provided as a service, but I do think it is inappropriate to limit it to just one provider at this point in time. So my amendment simply removes the reference to the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. 5135 I would like to say at this stage that I have nothing against the Steam Packet, and I have met some representatives with Minister Gawne quite recently and was impressed with their passion and commitment to the company and to the Island; I simply think that to limit ourselves to one company and to one business right now is premature. The only part of the entire situation that does need to be resolved quickly, is the land for the 5140 new landing stage at Liverpool – and there is no doubt that this is urgent (A Member: Hear, hear.) and I have no hesitation in supporting that part of the motion. So, apart from (f) and (g) I can support what is on the Order Paper; but I think – and I am sure others would agree – that there are other options that we have had no chance of considering and debating, that are not on the Order Paper. I honestly think that we need to be more in 5145 control of what really is the lifeline for the Island. It is of the utmost importance to our economy and our wellbeing. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to regain that control, by looking at different business models, and that is why I have tabled the addition of:

______1951 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

(i) that simultaneously all alternative ownership models should be investigated and a report produced for debate and decision by Tynwald.

And I know that different models have been looked at by a working group, but Tynwald Members have not received a report on this, nor has there been the opportunity for discussion 5150 and debate in this Court. One such model could be where Government owns the vessels and openly tenders for a provider of services; and because the provider would not be tying in many millions to purchase bespoke vessels, the length of the contract awarded could be significantly shorter. Plus it would be another element of control. 5155 If we could control the landing stages at either end of the journeys and the vessels used to make the journeys, we would be in a position of real control and in charge of what the Island needs. But this is just one model that is available for discussion and I am sure that Members will have others that they would like to be reported on and given the opportunity to debate. Finally, I think before any decision is made, that the whole issue of our harbour and the 5160 possibility of a deepwater berth needs to be fully explored. (A Member: Hear, hear.) If a decision is made to fund a deepwater berth this alters the situation quite drastically. Larger vessels would be able to berth, so there would be no necessity to have bespoke vessels or second-hand vessels that are in very short supply; and it again widens our options. I do hope that Hon. Members will see the logic in my arguments and support the 5165 amendments. Thank you. I beg to move:

After recommendation (g) to add the words: (h) approves the Department preparing a draft legal agreement to cover the development of a new Strategic Sea Services Agreement to be brought back to Tynwald for final approval; and (i) that simultaneously all alternative ownership models should be investigated and a report produced for debate and decision by Tynwald.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk. (Interjection and laughter)

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. 5170 I was not seconding – (Interjection) Oh, go on –

The President: Mr Quirk, you have the floor.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. 5175 Just looking at the picture that is unfolding I am probably a little bit early jumping up because I notice there are a number of amendments flying around. (Interjections)

The President: There is only one!

5180 A Member: There is only one before us.

Mr Quirk: Well, we are aware of a few (Interjection by the President) that are floating around. Can I just ask Hon. Members here today to look … we are making strategy for the future. We are making strategy for the long-term commitment for a vital sea service for the Isle of Man, for 5185 our nation. And I will give some praise to the Minister, for having the consultation with Members and for having briefings with Members and the Isle of Man Steam Packet themselves. It cannot be very easy for the incumbent to open up and give us everything in this particular House here today; it is a private company, it does trade out there, everybody knows its history, everybody knows that the service we have had for a number of years, for a long time – the

______1952 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

5190 history of it when it was taken over by Sherwood. I remember as a young lad, being down at the docks in the trade unionist days when some people were calling Sherwood the best thing ever for the Steam Packet but others said, ‘You will mark that day’ – and I think we did. The company itself travelled from craning stuff off on to the docks to containerisation, investing in the Isle of Man, bringing jobs to the Isle of Man, and then going into ro-ro; and, of 5195 course, the other vessel that came along that was in competition. I think, Hon. Members, we have learnt a lot over a number of years about competition. We are a small nation; we are a proud nation; and we have a great sea link to the north-west. And I was grateful to the Minister for doing a little bit about Fleetwood – I cannot believe how many people think Fleetwood is a wonderful port. I am not a seafarer, but I do know some 5200 people who have said to me, ‘If we went to Fleetwood we would probably get in, but half the time we wouldn’t get out again!’ And that is not something we want for a modern shipping service for the Isle of Man. On the recommendations put forward here from the Department itself, in principle I am happy with all of them, to tell you the truth; and the amendment coming forward – although it 5205 has not been seconded yet and I hope you don’t mind, Mr President if I just talk about it loosely –

Several Members: No!

5210 The President: Are you seconding the amendment?

Mr Quirk: Sorry, Mr President, I wandered around it then, a little bit! (Laughter)

The President: I am sorry, Mr Quirk, are you seconding Mrs Beecroft’s amendment? 5215 Mr Quirk: I was not, sir –

The President: No, well you cannot talk about it then! (Interjections and laughter)

5220 Mr Quirk: No, okay – I am not talking about something that is going to happen, then, okay. I would just say to Hon. Members here, I think for clarity today we need to make a decision – not for ourselves, or the company, or the Department. I think we should be making a decision tonight here for the future … the future of the Isle of Man and, really, the next generation that is coming along. 5225 I support the Minister one hundred per cent to buy us a stake in Liverpool. I think that is a positive move. We need to own something in that particular jurisdiction; and the spurious things that have come out about planning – and I know the Mayor of Liverpool has said that no matter what UNESCO was doing there, they need to get on to it. The other developers there … and the group that is putting up a £90-odd million investment, 5230 Peel Holdings, is not doing it for fun; he is doing it because he wants to make the north-west the central hub. Since I have been in politics, we have driven it that way. We were forced to go to Heysham some years ago because the port was owned by somebody else, and it does have its difficulties sometimes when the swell is on. Just bringing it back to the particular issues … and until I am really persuaded hard, I am 5235 supporting the Department in its endeavours. My concern is a little bit, Minister – and I must say this to you – is that since you had Members in your Department, I know you wanted everybody to come out with different views on that – and because I have spoken early I will not know them all. But I will give you at the minute, a commitment that I will support what is listed here to (8) and then the (b), (c), (d), (e), (f). 5240 But putting it out to grass would do a disservice to the community and the Isle of Man as a whole, and to our economy. If we do not have a good sea link to bring our goods and services – ______1953 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

and export our services out of the Island – we might as well give up, really. And those people who say that there are people floating out there wanting to come in and put ships in here, we have seen them all come and go. 5245 I have seen certain individuals say that they have got backing of this and it has been tested all over; there are no ships – sorry about the pun – floating about there to take up the issue. And it does not stop anybody, as far as I know – and the Minister probably will correct this – from putting a passenger service in there. All it means is that we have a deal with the linkspans at each side for freight – there is nothing stopping anybody bringing in a side-loader. And if you 5250 look at the small vessel that came in the other day – the Balmoral – it actually enjoyed itself in the Isle of Man because it made more money, just floating around the coast and going through the Calf, down at the Sound. Hon. Members, just look what we are going to get ourselves into. I am sure everybody, hand on heart, is going to support the £3.5 million investment into 5255 Liverpool – that gives us the security, for us as an Island in another jurisdiction. That gives us the support that we need, and the support we give to industry out there, to develop in our country; and to come to the Isle of Man, bring your business here and you can either have the sea services … and just look, how many complaints have was had about the sea services? We get more about the airlines – every day they are growing. But the sea, apart from sometimes in the 5260 winter, goes all the time. And they have been giving us more than they were duty-bound under the agreement to give us! We forget about that. Thank you.

The President: The Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Joughin. 5265 Mr Quirk: Now you are caught!

Mr Joughin: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to second the motion by the Member for South Douglas, Mrs Beecroft. 5270 The President: Are you seconding the amendment?

Mr Joughin: I am indeed, yes, and reserving my remarks. (Interjections)

5275 The President: You cannot reserve your remarks. If you wish to speak you have to speak now.

Two Members: Speak now or forever hold your peace. (Interjection by Mr Joughin)

The President: So you are seconding, thank you. 5280 The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President, and thank you for your indulgence as we are just trying to sort out the paperwork. We have today here, Item 8, Sea Services Agreement. As one of the Members on the working 5285 party I was extremely disappointed to see this Item being rushed through at this sitting. The Department employed consultants to have a look through the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company's proposals and other options. During those discussions we were informed that the consultant did not think it was in our best interest to move quickly on this agreement and, to get the best deal, we would be advised to leave this for at least two years. So I would disagree with 5290 my friend and colleague, Mr Quirk, from Onchan when he says that we need to get this done and dusted now. (Interjection by Mr Quirk) We already have a service here and I do not think that, if do not agree to this agreement, that we will suddenly have no boats in the morning. ______1954 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Since the User Agreement has come into force, this has been used as a cash cow for many 5295 investment companies. It is not the Steam Packet Company that many of us remember. Over the years the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company has been an investment vehicle with high, or very high, returns. Banks and private equity companies have taken a punt on investing in purchasing the Steam Packet Company. It is now time to call a halt to this; it is the residents and visitors to the Isle of Man who are funding these high returns. 5300 We will, of course, have Members saying, ‘Well, it is not up to this Government to restrict investors in companies like the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company.’ I would agree: this is a lifeline to the Isle of Man. It involves the economic growth and sustainability of our Island and that is why we should now take a step back and review what the Isle of Man, its visitors and its residents require in the long term and into the future. But that is making a fair profit and not the 5305 excesses that have been achieved over the last 15 years at the cost of the Isle of Man residents and its visitors alike. It is vitally important that we control our ports. Mr President, investors in the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company will be looking for an immediate return on their investment once this new agreement is signed. That is why I believe they are wanting to rush this through. I do not 5310 understand the Minister's obligation to present this, at this time, to this Hon. Court and I think they should be reviewed completely. The Steam Packet Company has served the Island well over the years, but it is now time to stop this being treated as a huge cash cow for investment. That is why I am moving an amendment, to be circulated in my name. 5315 Mr President, if Hon. Members would disregard the previous papers that were circulated, there is a new one coming round and I hope it should be with you shortly – it is off at the printers!

Mr Quirk: Version 2, is it? 5320 Mr Cregeen: Version 2. Hon. Members, the Isle of Man sea services are vitally important to the economy. I do not believe this is something that should be rushed at the last minute. We will need to take time and I believe the next Parliament should not be left with the legacy of a bad deal for the people of 5325 the Isle of Man. Mr President, I am just wondering whether I should continue or try and explain my way through the amendments until the papers come through? I will take your lead.

The President: Yes, but unfortunately the amendment is not in our hands. 5330 Mr Quirk: Shame, Mr Cregeen.

The President: It is being printed and we expect it imminently, but can I suggest you talk to it and we will all listen carefully, (Laughter) and marry up what you say with the amendment when 5335 it comes.

Mr Cregeen: I will try and wing my way through it, Mr President. (Interjection by Mr Quirk) Ah, here it is!

5340 Mr Corkish: Saved by the bell!

Mr Cregeen: Mr President, it is generally in keeping with the majority of the motion moved here today – which has made it very difficult to put the amendments though because of slight changes to the motion. 5345 If I give you a slight example, it is: ______1955 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

That Tynwald receives the report entitled ‘Liverpool Landing Stage/Strategic Sea Services Agreement’ and approves the following recommendations …

On item (ii) of that it says:

Reliable sea transport which has a proven record of operating safely at all times of the year …

The amendment takes out ‘Irish’, so it reads:

… at all times of the year in a challenging Sea environment is a key requirement …

This is so that it opens up proposals that possible companies, who do not operate in the Irish Sea but maybe in the North Sea, can have an option of actually looking at this agreement. 5350 If we move down to (vii):

The size of ferries and timing and frequency of sailings must provide sufficient capacity for the fluctuating daily demands of passengers and freight customers …

A Member: It is number (vi).

Mr Cregeen: Is it number (vi)? Sorry, I am trying to work off an old piece of paper here, so Members please give me a bit of leeway on that! 5355 We are removing the part where it says:

… recognising the operational constraints of Douglas harbour.

The reason behind that is that it would give options for possibly a deepwater berth to be considered. One of the things I would hate for the sea services to be constrained by is the size of the vessel.

5360 Mr Cannan: Sorry, just a point of order, if the gentleman will give way? His amendment does not remove that, it says:

… recognising the operational constraints of Douglas harbour …

A Member: It does.

Mr Cregeen: Oh, right, so it is on the other one. (Interjections) 5365 Sorry, Mr President, I have not got the new copy there yet!

Mrs Beecroft: This is the new copy.

A Member: You wrote it! 5370 A Member: Who wrote it?

Mr Cregeen: I have not got the copy; it has not been left with me. (Interjections) Mr President – 5375 The President: Could we please arrange for Mr Cregeen to have a copy – (Interjections)

Mr Cregeen: I have got it now!

5380 The President: – and to clarify the point made by Mr Cannan, because I am confused what you are referring to.

______1956 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mrs Beecroft: We are all confused! (Interjections)

Mr Cregeen: Right, number (vii). 5385 Mr Karran: Who wrote it?

Mr Cregeen: I wrote it, it is just that it has been changed a bit. Right, ‘the size of ferries and timing’ … sorry, Mr President, it was a piece that I had missed 5390 out on here … ‘the constraints of Douglas harbour …’ What I mean by ‘the constraints’ is that we should actually leave the outer harbour as an option – we should not just be thinking of the inner harbour. I think we should be allowing the possibility of larger vessels to come into Douglas, so we do not want to be constrained by just having vessels that would go to the existing linkspans. 5395 I think that will be a big boost to the economy of the Isle of Man; it will help with the purchase of future vessels, that we will not be stuck with bespoke vessels which have to be built. As one of the Hon. Members has already said, it is very difficult to get vessels to fit in our harbour. So, if you have any problems with the two vessels that are proposed, we would be stuck without a lifeline. 5400 Mr President, after discussions with Peel, I have put an amendment in at (d) –

Mr Quirk: Is that Mr Harmer? (Laughter)

Mr Cregeen: – that:

… supports the Department spending a sum not exceeding £3.5 million for the purchase of the site Princes Half- Tide Dock, Liverpool subject to the granting of appropriate planning permission

5405 That is to secure that we do not spend our money and then we find out that because of some preservation that has been put on the Half-Tide Dock that we have no investment. Ultimately, Mr President, on (f):

That Tynwald (f) appoints a Select Committee of 5 members to be nominated at the November 2016 sitting to investigate the IOMSPCo offer and any other option for future sea services;

Mr President, I believe that this Select Committee will actually look into what proposals the Steam Packet have, especially when we have had concerns regarding special offer fares, and 5410 actually how much this has generated through the economy, because there have been a number of issues that they are saying they are going to invest £17 million in special offer fares – but if these are at 2.15 in the morning and nobody takes them, do they still count as part of that investment? I believe a Select Committee will be able to look into that and bring the professional advice 5415 that will be required to ensure the future of the Isle of Man sea services is going to be a benefit to the Isle of Man economy, not a legacy that we regret, by ensuring that there have been these excessive profits that have been generated over the past few years. Mr President, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.

To leave out all the words after ‘That’ in the first line and to insert the words: Tynwald receives the report entitled ‘Liverpool Landing Stage/Strategic Sea Services Agreement’ [GD No. 2016/0045] and approves the following recommendations and (a) endorses eight strategic principles as follows: (i) High quality sea transport is a critical element in serving international trade and services must be to appropriate international standards.

______1957 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

(ii) Reliable sea transport which has a proven record of operating safely at all times of the year in a challenging Sea environment is a key requirement and has a critical impact on the quality of life and cost of living on the Island. (iii) Long term arrangements that clarify future services and costs promote economic stability and increase certainty for businesses and consumers. (iv) Direct and reliable sea transport service links to the main freight and passenger ports in adjacent jurisdictions must be retained to ensure rapid and direct access to centres of population and distribution, rail and trunk road infrastructure. (v) Reduced duration of crossings and lower costs of travel encourage more frequent short stay travel, reduced business costs and faster delivery times (vi) The size of ferries and timing and frequency of sailings must provide sufficient capacity for the fluctuating daily demands of passengers and freight customers while recognising the operational constraints of Douglas harbour. This includes the provision of additional capacity for planned tourism events including the TT and other predictable short term seasonal peaks in demand. (vii) High quality terminals and vessels are a crucial element in providing prominent gateways to the Isle of Man, ensuring passenger comfort and creating a good first impression. This includes investing in public areas, customer service, customer information, and customer welcome. (viii) Government should work with stakeholders to encourage appropriate investment in the Isle of Man economy and port of Douglas development through: marketing activity; protecting the Isle of Man's shipping lanes; supporting suitable expansion at strategically important ports; supporting improved transport links within the United Kingdom to the North West of England; promoting stability in Isle of Man maritime. (b) agrees that these principles should form the basis of a new Strategic Sea Services Policy; (c) requires the Department to present the new Strategic Sea Services Policy for Tynwald approval in January 2017; (d) supports the Department spending a sum not exceeding £3.5 million for the purchase of a site at Princes Half-Tide Dock, Liverpool subject to the granting of appropriate planning permission; and (e) endorses the Department’s preferred option of seeking an open tender for a design and build contract to develop the facility but on the basis that no work should begin on developing the facility until agreement has been reached with a ferry service provider to operate from the facility; (f) appoints a Select Committee of 5 members to be nominated at the November 2016 sitting to investigate the IOMSPCo offer and any other option for future sea services; (g) approves the Department continuing to negotiate with the IOMSPCo, subject to a requirement that the Department bring any proposals back to the Select Committee; and (h) endorses the Department’s preferred option of seeking an open tender for a design and build contract to develop the facility but on the basis that no work should begin on developing the facility until Tynwald approval on expenditure.’

5420 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Malarkey.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Eaghtyrane, could I just rise on a point of order? I think that it may be helpful if, before this is seconded, the hon. mover has the opportunity to review it again, because (d) and (h) say the same thing –it is obvious that that has been added in 5425 twice now. So I think there are things that the hon. mover – and this perhaps is me talking against my own case here – had expected to have in that are not in and things that are added in twice, and I am not absolutely sure this is the amendment that he was looking for.

______1958 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

It is unfortunate, I think, that we could not have just had the actual amendments required rather than replacing the whole thing, because it then adds to the confusion and nobody really 5430 knows what has been added in and what has been taken out.

The President: I am going to ask the Clerk to clarify this, if I may, just on what the amendment says in relation to Mr Gawne's point.

5435 The Clerk: I am in Mr Cregeen’s hands, really, but I have got (d) as:

supports the Department spending a sum not exceeding £3.5 million …

Several Members: (e).

Mr Shimmin: (e) and (h).

5440 The Clerk: Oh, I see … (Interjections)

The Minister: They are remarkably similar. (Interjections)

Mr Robertshaw: Mr President, can I just suggest something here? May I? 5445 The President: Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr President. They do look very similar – (e) and (h) look very similar, but they conclude on the different 5450 remark; (e) says:

… until agreement has been reached with a ferry service provider to operate from the facility;

And (h) concentrates on:

… that no work should begin on developing the facility until Tynwald approval on expenditure.

So they appear very similar in format, but they arrive at different conclusions and therefore should be capable of being retained. (Interjections) Is that helpful? 5455 The President: Yes, my reading is the same as yours, that they are in relation to the same requirement, but in respect of different parties. (Interjections) Is that right?

5460 Mr Coleman: One is operational.

The President: Can we all accept that, then, and therefore the amendment can stand?

Mr Cregeen: Yes, thank you. 5465 The President: Thank you.

Mr Cregeen: Sorry for the confusion, Mr President.

5470 The President: Are you content, Mr Cregeen?

______1959 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Cregeen: I am.

The President: Mr Malarkey. 5475 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, yes, I rise to second the amendment in the name of Mr Cregeen. Mr President, I think the Minister started today with the right words. This is probably the most important debate on the agenda this year, to be perfectly honest, next to the pensions. This is the lifeline of the Isle of Man we are talking about here. This is the future of the economy 5480 of the Isle of Man. This is a much bigger picture than just sitting here talking about the User Agreement. Many will be aware, many will not be aware, that Mr Cregeen and I have now sat on two Select Committees with regard to the Steam Packet Company in the past 10 years and we have both been on the working group, working with the Minister since last September on the 5485 proposals brought forward today. Mr Cregeen has already said that he and I – and, I know, other political Members on that committee – do not totally agree with the recommendations that have been brought forward today, but we have been trying to work very hard with the Minister to find a suitable road at the end of the day that we could all agree on. Mr President, I think the first thing I should make very clear so that there is absolutely no 5490 confusion, whatsoever: buying the Liverpool landing stage is not disputed by any members of the committee. It has to be a decision made today. It is right for the Isle of Man. Mr Cregeen and I, and a few other Members, have spoken to Peel Holdings over the last week and we are extremely happy with their proposals and their eagerness to help the Isle of Man moving forward with this landing stage. So I want to make it quite clear that Mr Cregeen and I certainly 5495 100% support the purchase of the land for the landing stage in Liverpool. It is extremely important, moving forward for the future of the Isle of Man, to own two links: one wherever it might be in the UK, Liverpool; and the Isle of Man. We are not talking this year, next year, 10 years’ time; this is a 260-odd year lease that we will have a connection and our own landing stage in Liverpool. So I start eagerly forward with the good news. 5500 I certainly do not believe – and I know Mr Woodward is sitting up there, probably cringing – that the deal that has been brought forward by the Steam Packet is the best deal on the table, because it is not by any means the best deal available, in my opinion, having looked at the deal extremely carefully. We are being ‘rushed’, I think would be a simple word put forward today, to try and make a decision on driving forward a renewal for the User Agreement. And you have got 5505 to ask yourself … We have all been lobbied. Have you not noticed in the last week we are being lobbied by everybody? We are being lobbied by the Steam Packet, by the unions, even by the pensions, by a former Member who has been lobbying us, and I find that quite amusing, really. The unions I can understand looking after their people and they are worried about the future of the employers. The User Agreement does not run out until 2026. I wish I had a 10-year contract 5510 in here! They have got a 10-year contract. They have got a pension trust that is funded. It might not be 100% funded, but I would rather be in their pension trust than be in a civil servant one which is non-funded. So I do not really know where the worries are coming from here; they have got at least another 10 years, moving forward. Mr President, what has become quite obvious through the various Select Committees – and 5515 Mr Cregeen touched on it – is the number of times our User Agreement has been bargained for on the Stock Exchange and the amount of money that has been made on the Stock Exchange. Interesting information came forward in the working group, that 31% of the current shares are now owned by Anchorage Capital Group. When you look at Anchorage Capital Group, it is a ‘distressed-focussed hedge fund firm’. It has gone round buying up the shares in the Steam 5520 Packet very, very cheaply. It now owns 31%. Why have they done that? Because they know the second that the User Agreement is signed they are going to make a killing. So here we go again, all over again. So the reason we are being forced and told that this offer is only on the table, I believe, until Christmas … I am sorry, I believe that is because of the timescale Anchorage has to ______1960 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

unload the shares again – and that information came from a very, very sound source to us last 5525 week. I do not believe for one minute that this is a life and death situation and that in the very last Tynwald of a five-year term we should be making a decision on a new User Agreement for the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. We have not explored all the possibilities. Mr President, when I got elected, at my first meeting with the Chief Minister my first words were, ‘I am taking a motion to Tynwald this July’ – that was July last year – ‘for a select 5530 committee to look into the whole sea services thing for the whole of the Irish Sea, the Isle of Man and the future.’ The Chief Minister said to me, ‘Please talk to Mr Gawne, because we are thinking of doing something ourselves along that line.’ So I spoke to Mr Gawne and hence came forward the Sea Services Working Group, of which I was Vice-Chair. I was not over-happy at the time but I thought I would give it a go, see where we got and see what would come out of it. 5535 Halfway through the working group’s work, all that kept coming on the table was a new offer from the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. Other negotiations or talks would go backwards and forwards and the board would come in and talk to us and tell us what a fantastic deal, going forward, and why they needed to renew the User Agreement. But there are other options out there – there are other options. I keep saying there is the option of buying the company – and 5540 that does not sound as wild as you might think it does, because the Chief Executive of Treasury has also looked at that and said yes, that is a feasible option.

A Member: He does not recommend it.

5545 Mr Malarkey: This company makes 18% profit a year. It made £9 million last year and a £50 million turnover, after it has paid its loans and its running costs. So the £9 million that is left will probably go to pay off the £109 million debt. I know the new User Agreement says that the £100 million debt … because there is actually £209 million debt, but the £100 million debt is parked and it is elsewhere. Whether that is part of the debt that Anchorage has bought … I do 5550 not know percentages; I am not privy to that type of information, Mr President. But most certainly there are other things going on behind the scenes. So let’s not rush into this with our eyes closed. This is really important for the future of the Isle of Man. Tourism, in my mind, is going to be a major part of our economy moving forward, if we get this right and a few other things right. Fewer and fewer tourists are going abroad these 5555 days; they are taking UK holidays. We have so much to offer on the Isle of Man, so before we rush into renewing something or revisit it, let’s look at our options, because I do not honestly believe that the working group explored all the options. Now I turn to the amendment, Mr President. I am talking to Mr Cregeen’s amendment, because the Hon. Member for South Douglas, Mrs Beecroft, has said similar things to what I am 5560 saying and I agree with what she is saying: we have not explored everything yet. I think that is very important, so if I picked it up right from what she was saying with her amendment I think everything is captured in Mr Cregeen’s amendment of what Mrs Beecroft is trying to do. She is trying to look at the bigger picture, which is what we all need to do: embrace the bigger picture. The amendment that Mr Cregeen and myself have worked quite hard on over the last few 5565 weeks and looked at since the Order Paper came out more or less follows everything that the Hon. Minister wants to do. He knows he has my support and I support most of the things, but the major part for me is that we have to buy Liverpool land – that is a no-brainer, we have to go ahead with that; but, secondly, he should not be coming back with an agreement to Tynwald, having said he has spoken to the company, without exploring other possibilities. So, by rewriting 5570 the motion here today, what this says is carry on the negotiations, let’s see what else the Steam Packet has got to offer, but when it comes back in November, or the new Court comes back, let’s have a select committee – not a Department, Minister, a select committee – from this Hon. Court looking at not just the agreement which is on the table or the improved agreement that will be on the table then, but also the possibilities of buying, going out to tender, letting the 5575 contract run for 10 years, letting it run out. There are many options out there that can still be ______1961 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

done. Mr Cregeen informed you we had experts, very expensive experts, who came over and gave us evidence about shipping and the way forward. Their evidence was that this is not the time to be renewing the User Agreement. We should be having the upper hand. The longer it runs, the more of an upper hand we have. 5580 So I urge you today to look at the rewritten motion in the name of Mr Cregeen. It follows more or less everything that the Minister wants to do, except in November it would then send it off to a select committee, who would then explore – the new parliament, the new Government. It is not up to us today to tell the new parliament really what we should be doing. Let a new select committee look at everything and the bigger picture, and maybe within six to nine months 5585 you will have a proper policy going forward under the new Government with clear direction of what is best for the Isle of Man. This is purely and simply what is best for the Isle of Man. I do not believe today, by following the original motion on the paper, that is what is best for the Isle of Man. So please support the amendment. As I said before and I keep repeating it, it does more or less everything but it just sends it to a select committee at the end of the summer. 5590 Thank you, Mr President.

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

Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr President. 5595 I have been on an interesting journey with the Steam Packet, both with these proposals and in the past. I entered Tynwald with great scepticism about the Steam Packet: its past financial excursions; debt; and, I have to say, in the past poor customer service. I really doubted its future as our sea service provider. 5600 Consequently, when elected, with the knowledge that a working group was being set up, I beat a route to the Hon. Minister’s door and asked if I might join the group. He acceded to this and the group has very thoroughly, I have to say, examined alternative operators, alternative corporate models, the possibility of engaging with other parties, compared costs with other service providers on other routes whether subsidised or not, looked at the reliability of the 5605 Steam Packet, the regularity of the service, destinations available, spare capacity, freight and passenger rates, and of course culminating in quite an extensive consultation with the public and business users. This has culminated in an offer by the Steam Packet which, I have to say, is not perfect but addresses many of the issues that were raised, such as new vessels, extra capacity, maintaining 5610 regularity of service, standby vessel and agreement on pricing structures into the future. Whilst looking at all these proposals, we should all bear in mind the Steam Packet is an Isle of Man based company that employs Isle of Man staff and expertise. The ships are registered in the Isle of Man. It has had a funded Isle of Man pension scheme. I believe that we have the basis of a good agreement to secure our sea services into the foreseeable future, with some further 5615 negotiation as a caveat. Interestingly, I published this offer widely on my social media and talked to many people in the constituency, and I have not had one objection or bad comment about the new User Agreement. With regard to the new landing stage in Liverpool, I was in Liverpool a couple of weeks ago and took the time to look at the proposed site. Whilst, to be honest, it does not look much at the 5620 moment, it is in a good position to afford easy passenger access and car access to the motorway network, Liverpool shopping centre and the business centre. I am convinced that controlling both ends of the route is a good move for the Isle of Man and will prove to be a sound investment, so I endorse the landing stage recommendation. There is one caveat with regard to that, at viii(e). Whilst I agree with the purchase of the land, I would prefer to see a lease 5625 arrangement, with the design and build commissioned and paid for the by the user, bearing in mind Government’s past history in procurement of large contracts and overspend.

______1962 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr President, I would say that we have to overcome the prejudice of the past, because it seems to be following us round like baggage. The Steam Packet’s debt has been parked and will not impinge, we are assured, on the future of the agreement. At the end of the day, we are 5630 contracting with a company for a service, and how they operate that company financially, as long as they deliver their contractual obligation, is their business. How they operate behind the scenes in a financial sense is also down to them. It is up to us to ensure that we have a robust contract in place that, if breached, has proper remedy, and I think that is the key to the future of this agreement. As has been pointed out, at the moment, these are recommendations and they 5635 do not commit a future Tynwald; they just give some guidance. With regard to the two amendments, I shall not be supporting either. I think both are basically delaying tactics that would lose us maybe the new vessels which are talked about by 2019, the extra capacity we so much require. We talk about developing the TT and another 30,000 visitors there, we want tourism to increase and we want to help business with freight, 5640 and I think delaying this agreement is not the way forward for the future. With that said, I shall support the original motion. Thank you very much.

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

5645 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr President. I think we all agree that this is a hugely important matter that will resonate for years to come. Therefore it is perhaps disappointing that we have commenced such an important debate in such a fumbling matter in the dying hours of this administration. I have heard many good speeches from the Minister, the Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne. 5650 Today’s submission was not his best by a long chalk. I was encouraged by the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey’s contribution; it was robust. I was also pleased to hear Mr Boot’s contribution, because I think it was important that somebody spoke for the Steam Packet. (Laughter) 5655 Before I say anything more, though, just for the record and for complete transparency, I did circulate a couple of papers early this morning, one of which was from the Isle of Man Shipping Association. Just for the record and so we are clear about this, my son is the Vice-President of the Isle of Man Shipping Association. His interest is exactly the same as ours. He has no vested interest in anything; he just cares, like we all do, hugely about the greater good and the future of 5660 the Isle of Man. My history is a long one with regard to the User Agreement and the Steam Packet, and I remember fighting vigorously with the then Chief Minister in the mid-1990s, Mr Miles Walker, about the User Agreement then – not because I did not think there should be a User Agreement, but because I was worried sick that we were not controlling the ownership element of it. The 5665 consequence we all know: we got the User Agreement, we got a reasonable service, but the international financial markets created significant debts, which I think went up to something in the region of £230 million, and in some respects we have never ever got off the treadmill since then. It is the history that we are trying to come to terms with. Okay, £130 million, or whatever it is, has been posted off, but there still appears to be about 5670 £95 million. If you put those two together, what has actually been paid off in terms of that debt – which came about because of the User Agreement and the User Agreement only, no other reason; it could not have been created otherwise. Not much has been paid down, and yet we heard from the Steam Packet that they were determined to pay it down by 2026. I am confused by that, because how do you pay down a debt of £95 million with a specific profit and yet 5675 manage to finance all this new build? I am sorry that in the public arena this £170 million investment has not been challenged more. It is not £170 million and it never was, and it never was two new vessels. The public of the Isle of Man, no wonder they have not objected – they have been told a duff story. We have been ______1963 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

told we will get a new boat, but the other one will be second hand. We are selling our souls for 5680 one new boat and a second hand fast craft. Come on! I do not think we should and I do not think we can. When Mr Gawne first became Minister of DoI I remember, and I am sure he remembers as well me saying two things to him. The first thing I said to him was, ‘Do not rush any deal with the Steam Packet –don’t do it.’ The second thing I said was, ‘Do not make any agreement or 5685 understanding a departmental issue. It’s too big, it’s NSG, it’s Tynwald. It’s us all. It belongs to everybody.’ Actually, what we got is the proposal before us today from the Department and rushed – and it was rushed. I remember nearly being sick just before Christmas when the expression of interest went out and the Department, in their naivety – utter commercial naivety – had given 14 or 20 days for major players to come back. I sent him a note straightaway saying, 5690 ‘Do you not realise that the boards of directors of these big companies are away for Christmas and you want them to give you a decision within a few days?’ Fortunately, the Department was then, thereafter, wise enough to extend it a little bit further, and yes, a number of operators came forward with ideas. I think we were told by the Minister that there were seven. And then it slowly disappeared. Well, of course it did, because we are coming at this far too early. No 5695 commercial operator is going to be interested years before they are going to be engaged. They might say, ‘Yes, we are interested, but not yet.’ So why did we do that when we did? Are we still on this treadmill? Are we still dancing to a tune, not by the Steam Packet, who try their best to give the best service they can within their constraints, but by the international markets that are really controlling this? As you have heard from the Member for Douglas South, 5700 there is an organisation called Anchorage. They are distressed-debt operators. I believe they want closure on their part of this game. They want us to dance to that tune. We must not dance to that tune. So I come to the core of what I wanted to say this evening, and that is the wording behind this new User Agreement. It is called the ‘Strategic Sea Service Agreement’, and I want to 5705 challenge that. With the greatest of respect, it is not for the Steam Packet to come forward with the strategy that the Isle of Man, that this Court, must adopt for its future ferry services. It is up to the ferry company to come forward with an operating agreement proposal. It is for this Court and those who we choose to advise us to devise finally what our strategy is going to be, and within that agreed strategy we then set in and plug in whatever User Agreement or operating 5710 agreement we want. We are being asked to go back to front, we are being asked to rush stuff in the last Court of this session – I am utterly and completely confused by it. What we need to do, as a Court, as politicians, as the Government, is decide what our future strategy is. The papers that I placed with you talk about where the world is going, how we should be thinking strategically. The Isle of Man has a fabulous history in terms of its engagement with the 5715 sea, one that it should be hugely proud of. It goes back, and we can all think of the many things … the creation of the RNLI on the Isle of Man, the work of the ferries during the Second World War – many, many things that we should be proud of, a proud maritime nation. But out there the world is changing, and ferries and boats and cargo vessels and working ships are all getting bigger and bigger and bigger, everywhere. Yet we seem to be content to contain ourselves with 5720 a little port that belongs to boats that are yesterday’s size. If we sign up to this, we are signing up to the past, not the future. There are wonderful opportunities in terms of cruise ships. Why are we talking today about Liverpool and the option there? The Mayor of Liverpool knows full well where the future lies: big cruise ships. From the papers I gave you, you know they are getting bigger and bigger. They do 5725 not want tendering; they want to park in so that their sometimes elderly passengers can get off. It is a superb opportunity that we have at least got to look at and think about. And when we have thought about it and arrived at our own conclusions, that is the point at which we turn round and we say, ‘Now, okay, what is it that we want to do with our ferry operations? How will they fit into this? How will they support it?’

______1964 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

5730 The Minister, I am afraid, has done exactly what I asked him not to do. He kept it departmental instead of making it holistically strategic, and he rushed his fences. So, for my part I am content with the final amendment that has come forward by Mr Cregeen from Malew and Santon. I also commend Mrs Beecroft for her comments as well; I think they were helpful and thoughtful. 5735 With that, Mr President, I support the amendment.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. 5740 The priority in this debate, as far as I am concerned, is to ensure and secure the route to Liverpool, whichever company is operating the route, (A Member: Hear, hear.) and I agree with the Minister it is also essential therefore that the Government has control of both ends of the route, Douglas and Liverpool. To be able to purchase and own the site at Princes’ Half Tide Dock in Liverpool is a once-only 5745 opportunity which will not be kept open to us for any length of time. That area is a prime location in Liverpool which building developers will snap up if we prevaricate, at probably seven or eight times the price that we are paying: £3½ million to secure Liverpool as a destination for 236 years. It is an opportunity and it has to be recognised as a good deal. The relationship between Liverpool and our Island has been there for hundreds of years and 5750 today is one of great mutual respect. I know I have witnessed in recent times, when attending Liverpool Vision meetings, discussing our relationship and working together in developing Chinese business connections, how much great support we have and how much Liverpool value our friendship. Their political leaders are continually saying ‘We are here to help you’, as they appreciate that we can also help them. 5755 We have heard the views of TravelWatch and I understand they have a responsibility to represent the travelling public of the Isle of Man, and there will be considerations in detail to be discussed and resolved, but we have to recognise that our use of the present landing stage is coming to an end and new arrangements need to be confirmed in the very near future to ensure that an operator does not control our Liverpool destination, because that, if I took a pessimistic 5760 view, could open us up to ransom demands. We have the very good will of Peel Holdings, which was reiterated to us recently, as Mr Malarkey said, and the company’s assurance that they will help us wherever possible. I think that is a very important statement from them. Other than in emergencies, it is a fact that freight will not be permitted to travel to this area, 5765 because this area will become a most prestigious showpiece in Liverpool and I can understand their reasoning. But it is also reassuring from the Minister that coaches will certainly be allowed on and off whichever vessel is serving the port. So I think, first of all, we should absolutely confirm our wish to purchase the site at Princes’ Half Tide Dock. In extreme circumstances it could be sold back, and as we have said, we would 5770 get our investment back. In relation to the other six recommendations, to me there is so much uncertainty, particularly in regard to the control of the Steam Packet’s financial position, and I think that was very clearly explained by both Mr Malarkey and Mr Robertshaw. I also did not take kindly to the intention to try and put pressure on Tynwald by 5775 demonstrating, with great publicity by the Steam Packet, that they could dock in Holyhead. The action, I believe, was naïve and had the opposite effect of what they were attempting to do. We were also told, weren’t we, that Steam Packet debt was none of our business. Well, I am afraid the Steam Packet debt is a lot of our business. The future of the Steam Packet, the intention of the financiers and shareholders and its continuing debt are matters which we need 5780 to be investigating before even considering an extension to the Sea Services Agreement.

______1965 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Of course, the Steam Packet proposals are said to be seen as having merit, and that is seen particularly by the Steam Packet Company, but the motion as printed that we have here, in my view is approving a new services agreement to the exclusion of other possible providers, saying to the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, ‘We will come back for some minor concessions, but 5785 yes, basically you have got the business, you have got the control.’ Therefore, I could not support the motion as printed from the Minister. Under point viii(a), it mentions ‘strategically important ports’. I would want any agreement with an operator to be much tighter, much more specific, mentioning Liverpool, Heysham – which needs a lot of work, of course – and Birkenhead, because someone might actually believe 5790 that Holyhead is strategic, but no other ports are reasonably feasible to get a good service and quick access to motorways. I ask Hon. Members not to commit to the motion at this stage and to support the amendment. There is much more information to glean. Much more assurance is needed as to the long-term future of the Steam Packet’s finances, the intentions of its financiers and its 5795 proposals to eliminate all debt. Therefore, Mr President, I would ask Hon. Members to support the amendment, thus securing the Liverpool terminal and having a select committee dig out all the information that is needed. (Interjection) The amendment.

A Member: ’s? 5800 Mr Cregeen: Which one?

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cregeen’s amendment, to clarify. Thank you, Mr President.

5805 The President: Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: Thank you very much, Mr President. I have listened to the speeches so far with great interest and I was particularly pleased to hear what the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw, said. Effectively, in summary, he 5810 was saying we need a lot more information here before we can go any further. I am therefore going to bring an amendment to Mr Cregeen’s amendment, because, having read the one that was produced, I felt it was lacking in a little bit of detail as to what actually needed to be done. I think that, whilst Members are perusing that, what it actually does is try to do what a lot of the Member for Douglas East was actually seeking in terms of much more 5815 intricate detail, but I will come back to that in a minute. I move:

Amendment: To add at the end of Mr Cregeen's amendment the words: ‘i) That an independent economic appraisal is required which shall assess: A) The requirement for a ferry service; B) Comparison with other similar ferry services; C) Service level requirements; D) Vehicle and operational requirements; E) Commercial issues including length of contract and other potential models; and F) Associated financial issues.’

I want to pick up on a couple of points, but really just clarify in my own mind and in the mind of the Court why we are actually so interested in this agreement. I just want to pick up on Mr Boot’s comments. He said that how the Steam Packet operate 5820 behind the scenes is down to them and how they operate financially is down to them, and that really all we are interested in is just getting a ferry service operating on our routes. Normally, I ______1966 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

would agree with him, but the single fundamental difference here is that the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company operate effectively as a monopoly because we do not have the capacity on the Island realistically to facilitate any source of competition. Although it is effectively open for 5825 someone to come and challenge the Steam Packet, the realism of the situation is that we know that is almost an impossible ask now. Therefore, it is our business how the Steam Packet operate behind the scenes, it is our business as to the financial structure of the company, because we need to know going forward that our strategic sea routes, which will be in the hands of one company – whether it is the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company or another business, should that 5830 be the case – are in the hands of a company that we can absolutely trust. The fact is, as Mr Cregeen said, the Steam Packet, unfortunately, has been used as a cash cow for investment companies. I have absolutely no doubt that were we to follow the routes outlined in today’s motion on the Order Paper and sign a deal with the Steam Packet, the first thing that is going to happen is that the ultimate owners of the Steam Packet – which include an 5835 international bank, which include a distressed-debt management company or hedge fund – will be seeking to shift their ownership in that company as quickly as possible. Once again, the Isle of Man’s sole strategic route will be used for the benefit of investment bankers and city financiers to satisfy their own financial gains and needs, and the needs of the Isle of Man resident community and those who come to visit us will not play a part in that thought process. 5840 So it is absolutely vital that we get this completely right moving forward and, to me, the documentation that we have been presented with so far is weak in terms of the strategic sea services. I think the document has not been subjected to proper scrutiny, first of all. We have not examined why the document, for example, has been so dismissive of operating a ferry service under an alternative structure, why it has been so dismissive of going out to a proper 5845 tender process. Those two items alone have not been examined properly and, as the Hon. Member for Douglas East has quite rightly pointed out, that original advertisement for ferry companies interested in tendering for sea services on the Isle of Man was set up to fail. The timing was appalling: it was at Christmas time. And secondly, certainly the inference and feedback that I have had was that those who may have applied just simply shrugged their 5850 shoulders and felt that it was a done deal anyway and that the purpose of running an advert over Christmas was effectively to ensure that people realistically did not put in a proper bid. These issues have not been subjected to any form of proper scrutiny, and yet today we are still being asked to press forward and sign away years and years of significant strategic routes potentially to one company; and, to me, that is not acceptable. 5855 I think the only good part within the proposals, as far as I can see, and the most commonsense part, is that we press forward with the Liverpool landing stage land acquisition, or the proposed landing stage land acquisition. To me, that makes a huge amount of sense. It starts to give us some control back on our main strategic route; and, let’s face it, anybody with any common sense would soon identify that Liverpool was our main port, our main hub, the 5860 favoured destination for our own residents and the easiest access point for those who are travelling from the mainland to visit us. So, what I have proposed here, to add some weight to Mr Cregeen’s amendment, which generally I am very supportive of because I think it is absolutely vital now that we give this some more considered thought and that we do not rush forward into dealing with the Steam Packet in 5865 isolation without considering the bigger picture, without giving some due consideration to the needs of the Island, not just now but in the future, without giving some consideration to our broader strategic aims as an Island – our economic aims, our economic growth aims, our population aims and the needs that we expect to go forward … what I have suggested to Hon. Members is that we do need to do a more thorough, independent economic appraisal of the 5870 situation as a whole. That economic appraisal should assess the actual requirement for a ferry service, a comparison with other similar ferry services in much more detail than has been outlined already to us, an indication therefore of the kind of service level requirements that we as an Island will need, and the vehicle and operational requirements therefore of any shipping ______1967 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

company or any service that we are going to need on the Island. It should investigate the 5875 commercial issues, including the length of contract and other potential models associated with the actual commercial arrangements, and of course it needs to explore some of the associated financial issues. Basically, what I am suggesting here, to build on what has already been suggested, is that we dictate the parameters, the framework of what we need, not the shipping company. 5880 (A Member: Absolutely.) That is what is absolutely critical and that is what is missing at the moment, because at the moment the cart is leading the horse and the horse needs to get back in front of the cart (A Member: Hear, hear.) if we are going to have any success with this route going forward. I remind Members that it is really our lifeline; it is the Island’s lifeline. We can debate all we 5885 want about open skies and flights in and out, but ultimately when it comes down to our most secure route, the route that provides us with our food, drink and water, that is basically the shipping route that we have available to us. It is the route that probably drives most of our tourist trade, most of our economic benefits that we receive from things like the Manx Grand Prix and the TT. 5890 Just to explore this in a bit more detail, so that Members can see that I have given this a bit of consideration, for the requirement for a ferry service you would be looking at defining the prime reasons for a ferry service to and from the Isle of Man, and basically we would be looking at what is defining us and what is driving us in terms of vehicles and foot passengers; what we might be doing to attract visitors, tourism, to the Island; assessing what was needed to provide a 5895 reliable freight service; and indeed perhaps to look at whether there needed to be any sort of stimulant for the Island economy and whether that might benefit, for example, our tourist trade. We need to compare with other Island ferry services. I think that we would look at places like the Hebrides, the Shetlands, Orkney, as well as the Channel Islands. It perhaps might also benchmark Scandinavian ferries; that might be one area that we need to look at. 5900 Then we need to look at qualifying service levels in terms of what is actually needed for optimal service levels and indeed the size of the vehicles that are needed for us to reach such optimum service levels. Then, of course, we look at other operational issues. We need to look at choice and sizing of the vehicles and make sure that we are in a position to service ourselves at peak demands as well as meeting our general economic and passenger requirements. 5905 Of course, one of the other aspects that we need to consider, as again the Hon. Member for Douglas East has put forward today, is the future of shipping going forward. We have been presented with options of new boats and things, but we have not really assessed at the moment whether those sorts of vessels will meet the Island’s optimum need, nor indeed whether they will be the right type of vessels to meet perhaps some of our environmental targets or whether 5910 the future would dictate that within a number of years those vessels will be undertaken by other types of vessels, perhaps driven by different fuels. That really needs to be looked at and assessed much more carefully. Of course, the commercial issues again: I think we really need to clearly understand what type of agreement is going to be needed here, the best framework possible for the Island and 5915 indeed a comparison against other contracts and other frameworks that are in existence. And we also need to revisit some of these other potential models that have been very quickly dismissed in the report on the strategic sea services, very quickly dismissed, and I think we need to look at those in more detail, and the five-man committee needs to look at those in more detail. 5920 Of course, the financial issues – we need to look very carefully around any associated financial issues, particularly any recommendations for any alternative types of model that may come forward out of any economic appraisal. Finally, I put in the words ‘independent economic appraisal’ because I do not think that the people involved in the documents that have so far been presented should actually be involved. I 5925 do think there are people, actually probably people even on the Isle of Man, with the type and ______1968 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

level of expertise and experience and also the understanding of the Isle of Man who may be in a position to do this, but of course that would need to be assessed. Indeed, it may be, Mr President, that Tynwald feels that this appraisal should wait until the committee has actually been formed. I think we have got plenty of time here; this is not 5930 something that needs to be rushed overnight. We have got 10 years before this User Agreement expires. We have got at least two to three years, if we wanted to, to actually make up our minds. There is no real pressure. The only pressure is coming from the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, and that is likely to be driven from the Steam Packet Company because their owners, the international banks and the distressed-debt or hedge funds, are going to want an agreement 5935 signed as soon possible. It is absolutely in their interest, right? What is in the Isle of Man’s interest is that we get this right and that we do not end up with a ferry service that we find is lacking from investment or not meeting our needs. The final point that I want to make is that, like everybody else, I have had contact from lobby groups, from within the Steam Packet, external bodies, and of course from the unions and 5940 indeed staff members of the Steam Packet particularly in relation to their pension funds. What I would say to people who are potentially effected in this manner is that, first of all, I would hope very much and trust that the pension fund that they are a member of is properly protected and fully funded, and if not I would like to know why that absolutely is; and secondly, I think any responsible Government would want to ensure that were, for example, the Isle of Man Steam 5945 Packet not to be the chosen company, there would be some form of transitional arrangements in place to maintain levels of staffing if at all possible. But our key priority is the Island and the Island’s security when it comes to this matter and that must be the absolute focus of our thoughts going forward.

5950 A Member: Hear, hear.

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

Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. 5955 I rise to second the amendment in the name of the Member for Michael, Mr Cannan, and in doing so will speak in support of that. As it builds on the amendment tabled by Mr Cregeen, I will also obviously be supporting that. I feel, really, that we just have not learned, sometimes. When I first came into this Court, one of the first jobs we had was the Select Committee on the then situation with the Steam Packet 5960 Company, and that investigation took over two years to complete. It was all surrounding the renewals of the User Agreement – two renewals, two sales – and it appears that we are in a similar situation again. The Hon. Member for Michael said we are putting the cart before the horse; we are certainly seeing the tail wagging the dog. I am not quite sure, though, whether it is the Steam Packet or 5965 the Department, because I have always been quite concerned about the relationship between the Department and the Steam Packet, whether it was the DoT or now the DoI. I think we are in a very dangerous situation here, because what we are basically saying is the principle … We are completely writing off the potential of other users coming in and saying this particular company can have this deal for life because there is a pension fund, because there is 5970 this, because there is the other. Well, Government in all areas are tendering for services, and some of those services, if they are really good, will get the job again, and others are not so fortunate and are not successful in the tender. I do not see why this, at this particular point, should be any different. I think we should not be writing off the possibility of other users. I happen to think over the last few years the service provided by the Steam Packet has been 5975 reasonably good. The reliability of the Ben my Chree and its service to Heysham is certainly one I always favour over booking to Liverpool. I was having this conversation before. The port is going

______1969 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

to have great access to the motorway network, especially with the new M6 link road opening. But what we are looking at here is much deeper than that and I think we are inward looking. I think, as the Hon. Member for Michael said, the situation over the expressions of interest 5980 was nothing short of a farce, coming out over the Christmas period. Mr Robertshaw alluded to it as well, I raised concerns, and I think they extended that by a few weeks. But then it was a very, I think, secretive way in which the responses were dealt with. I was a Member of the Department at the time. They were sifted through by officers in the Department, including the Director of Ports, it was whittled down to a shortlist and then, apart from getting a few headline figures 5985 about who was interested and who was not, and somebody was not up to the job, we did not really get any detail on that. I think it was going through the motions. The point was also made that at this particular stage, with the User Agreement still having another 10 years to run, nobody really was going to seriously put any real effort into putting a proper tender together. Indeed, the letter which we had, that Mr Robertshaw mentions, does 5990 say that only by carrying out a full tender exercise would you actually see exactly whether there is a more attractive offer on the table. I would certainly hope that, as part of that process, the current company makes sure they have the best offer on the table, because I do not think anybody is trying to get rid of them; what we are saying is we want the best company and if you are in that position now you have got a real head start over any competitor who is going to have 5995 to come in and secure jobs and port facilities and all the infrastructure they need to run the operation. They are at a huge advantage, so they very much should be saying, ‘Yes, we would like a tender; we are going to be the best and we are going to win it.’ I do also raise concerns as to why the Department are almost like a mouthpiece for the company, and I think the Department should be far more neutral than this. They really should be 6000 coming away from it and changing the language with which they are dealing with this subject, because to the outside world it seems like they have already made their minds up, that they are talking to the Steam Packet, that basically that is the way it is going to be, but it is okay because the next parliament will sort out the detail. That is why I think we need to be very careful of some of the words that are being used, because the way I am reading it is they are saying ‘Yes, 6005 decisions will be made by the next parliament, we are leaving it for them’, but it is almost like saying ‘You have got to make decisions based on we are going to have an agreement with them, but the details you can sort out later’. I want to be sure, categorically, that what we are deciding here today is that the message needs to go out … because we have seen it before in this place, where we have come back later 6010 and said, ‘Oh, well, there is an implied contract now, so you have got to give it to them.’ I want to be absolutely sure that this decision does not guarantee the Steam Packet or anybody else certainty of the contract, the agreement, or whatever we are going to call it, in future years. We have to also remember that the current company also has ownership of the old sea linkspan. I understand there is an agreement that they own the asset but the citing of that 6015 agreement runs alongside the existing User Agreement. I do not think anybody is saying, ‘Well if we will not give you a User Agreement on the DoI-owned linkspan, then we are chucking you off the Victoria Pier.’ They still have the ability to operate, put on a very good service and win the business. So I think some of the threats and almost ultimatums we are being given here are a bit of shroud waving. They are almost a bit like some of the shroud waving that was going on over 6020 the Brexit debates: this will happen, that will happen, the other will happen. We have also heard in some of the briefings – and again this was all in conversations and discussions between Members – they will withdraw, they might pull out, they might not go to Liverpool if we do not buy the land, they will go to Holyhead to punish us. I cannot see any company deliberately cutting their nose to spite their face when they have good trade going to the particular ports, 6025 why they would lose that, and certainly that is no way to behave. The message should be that they are going to put on the best service possible. So I do think we need to be very sure about what we are agreeing to here. As I said, I am seconding the add-on that Mr Cannan has tabled to the amendment by Mr Cregeen. I think what ______1970 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

that gives is a clear steer to the Department of where things should be left pending the new 6030 administration coming in. The appointment of a Select Committee will then be able to test the various suggestions that have been put forward, including all the items mentioned in Mr Cannan’s amendment as well. I think it is vitally important we do that. But at the moment, all I am seeing is that we seem to be saying here today we are going to do a deal because there is an offer on the table, nobody else is capable of doing it because we put out this ridiculous thing 6035 over Christmas last year, or the year before. I just do not think that is the right thing. I think lots of good points have been made by Mr Robertshaw and Mr Cannan and I think we should be very, very cautious about this. It has to be done right and I think being given ultimatums that this deal will be withdrawn by Christmas, or whenever it was … Well, Mr Cannan is right: the tail is not wagging the dog here. This place is in control of what it wants to do for its future, because 6040 this decision is going to last a very long time and it has to be done right.

Mr Robertshaw: Hear, hear.

The President: Hon. Member for Peel, Mr Harmer. 6045 Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr President. I think there have been a number of things that have been said, but I think we need some clarity and to think about actually what the process was. There is a sentiment that this has been rushed through, but I think that nothing could be further from the truth, because in actual fact 6050 we have been spending a good year on this process. The Sea Services Working Group encapsulated lots of different people from many different viewpoints, from many different industries, including the Chamber of Trade, including TravelWatch. Before I go into any detail, what I really want to say is let’s step back here and actually look at what the potential is and what we could be looking at: we are looking at the use of a backup 6055 vehicle, another vehicle, the Arrow, for the TT; we are looking at the investment of two new vehicles; we are looking at Liverpool being established. We are actually seeing something fundamentally positive, something strategic and actually clasping both ends of that route and having that going forward for the next 20 years. The second thing that I want to just mention is the idea that there was only one option on 6060 the table. Again, that is not true. We looked at all of the different options: we looked at tender process, we looked at buying boats, we looked at nationalising, we looked at all sorts of different scenarios. But let’s just take a few of those. For example, if you tendered the service, what do we mean by that? Do we mean tendering the service, the operation, or do we actually mean the boats as well? As we know, there is a limit 6065 of what boats can actually go from the Island, so are we really saying we are buying the boats? Is that what we are saying? If we look at nationalising, we could buy the Steam Packet. That would be £130 million or so. Do we actually have the finances to achieve that? Interestingly enough, comment was made about the independent parties saying that we 6070 should not go and do any agreement now. Well, actually, that was not quite true. It was actually saying that if we wanted to buy the company we need to wait. Again, I just want to highlight that the issues were looked at in detail. A lot has been made about the debt, but again let’s step back from this. This is not like a nationalised company. We do not own that debt; it is the company that owns that debt. That 6075 was a big concern that came through the working group, and what we put in there was break clauses, so if that debt ever came back onto the company or was used to put up prices, we would break the agreement. The other thing that needs to be highlighted is about trust. The Member from Michael said there is an issue of trust here. Well, I would like to say that over the last 20 years actually the 6080 Steam Packet has done an absolutely fantastic job. The Member for Council has talked about ______1971 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

reliability improving, and we have to remember what was there before the User Agreement. (A Member: Hear, hear.) We also have to look at the issues … the fares have been static in some places and some actually have gone down, and they are bound by the agreement, which is Manx RPI, and in many 6085 cases that has actually been less than that. What this agreement does is take that forward and it says the price will be controlled. That is, again, a fantastic thing. If we look at the current arrangement, there is talk about Holyhead. At the moment they can go anywhere: they can go to Liverpool, Holyhead or wherever. If we look at the agreement, we can specify exactly that Liverpool is where we want to go and we do not want to go to Holyhead. 6090 What I am seeing in this debate and what I am concerned about is that we are turning everything round in a circle. It seems plausible, it seems good, but in actual fact we will get exactly the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. We delay this and in the end we may end up with Holyhead. Why should the Steam Packet be forced to use Liverpool? We could end up with a landing stage that they do not use. If they have only got a few years left on the 6095 agreement, why should they use Liverpool? If we look at the issue of support generally, I think this agreement does have a lot of support out there in the public. Again, it has been said that it has been rushed. We have had a questionnaire that went out, and had 1,247 responses. Those responses wanted a Liverpool landing stage and wanted us to go forward with an agreement. 6100 There was another statement saying this is again rushed and we are just forced. Again, there is no ‘forced’ element to this. We can decide. We can look at the agreement and negotiate a better one, or we can look at clauses and we can decide whether we should improve it or not. There is a company that is committed, that has pensions here, that is a local company. The management is strong, it publicises the Island, it works well with the Department of Economic 6105 Development and actually does invest. You have got to ask the question: what do we do? If we let this agreement run down, what will happen? There is no reason for them to invest. There is no reason for the management to even bother. All that will happen is they will pull back. I just want to emphasise the fact that we think delaying it seems the right thing, but this has been going on for a long period, it is not a snapshot, and by doing so we will end up where we 6110 have a company that is not interested. They will just wind down until 2026 and then who knows what sort of an agreement we will get. Other comments have been made about whether the time was not enough for expressions of interest. Actually, it was extended and there were seven in all. Three of those only were actually plausible, and one of those was the Steam Packet. So, again, I do not accept the opinion that 6115 there are hundreds of different companies out there that would be able to take on the service. Another option is saying why don’t we buy an outer floating berth. Well, again, that is an additional £50 million. This is all money that is in addition to what we want to spend. So I do think, looking at the User Agreement, it is something that we should consider and move forward, and therefore we should go with the original motion. 6120 I just want to caution a couple of things that a couple of other people have said. Number one is that we should design the boats and do everything, and we can decide how many spaces, car spaces etc. Well, again, should we be going into designing the boats? I am not convinced. In the Sea Services Working Group we had lots of different options. We looked at the Highlands, we looked at Jersey and all of those kind of issues. None of those have a sea service link as good as 6125 ours; a lot of them are either subsidised or they run at a loss. So before we want to reopen all of that debate again, we need to consider that. In summary, I think it is a good deal and we have got to be very careful before saying let’s just stall it, just wait and wait and wait. Actually, what will happen if you follow through … This is an exciting agreement. It needs to be tweaked, there are issues with it that can be considered, but 6130 just to kick it into the long grass will have the opposite of the desired effect.

A Member: Hear, hear. ______1972 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

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

6135 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr President. The Minister did ask us today … he wanted some feedback. I think he has had quite a lot of feedback from everyone here today, but it is important and it is not to be kicked into the long grass. I think everyone has said that Liverpool seems to be the key. Liverpool has got almost half a 6140 million people there, in the northwest there are seven million people, so that is a great gateway to the Isle of Man. We want to be encouraging that, and there has been a lot of support for Liverpool to be the landing stage. But what do we do with the rest of it? Big concerns about no tendering, big concerns about missing opportunities for bigger boats, but all these things seem not to have been looked at. They have not reported back. Where do 6145 we go from there? What is the Minister going to come back with now? That is what I am keen on, to see what he is going to come back with now. Do we go with amendments, or is the Minister able to come back to us now with some amendments to that motion? I look forward to his reply very much indeed.

6150 The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly.

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I think it was Mr Malarkey who said that this would probably be the biggest debate of this administration, and it hasn’t disappointed, has it? The Steam Packet: I think we have all got 6155 views about that, without a shadow of a doubt. One or two Members have touched on the history, and I think that is really important because – and Mr Corkish is sitting on the outside here today, but could tell us an awful lot about it – the history goes back to 1830. For 186 years the Steam packet has been serving the Isle of Man. We all know, I think, the term ‘a boat in the morning’, and that is what we have 6160 lived by for many years. If we think about the history, we need to understand … and we talk a lot about strategy, because this is what this is about: a strategic sea service agreement. Because when you think of our vital links, not with the mainland, as Mr Cannan says, but with other islands around us, we have open skies but we have closed seas; and they go against each other, but quite frankly open skies, I tend to believe, works. This Court has endorsed that policy: it has 6165 got competition and it has reduced the airfares because we have managed to invest in infrastructure. We invested in the infrastructure of the Airport runway to allow larger planes, therefore low-cost carriers, and we have got more Airport services and lower average airfares than we have had for many years. So competition has worked, and the reason competition has worked is because we have also grown the market for air travel, which is one of the biggest 6170 competitors, I might say, for the Steam Packet when we talk about competition – because it is always the debate ‘let’s bring in another operator’, but we all know about the restrictions with regard to our own harbour, so that is not so easy. But we will come back to that, because I think it is a good point that Mrs Beecroft raised, and Mr Robertshaw, about the deepwater berth. There are three main principles that are key for me, and I would hope we would all want to 6175 sign up to them. I touched upon it before, but ‘boat in the morning’ is about reliability. We must have a reliable service on the sea link; it is vital for our economic and social wellbeing, without a shadow of a doubt. Our economy really depends on that. But if you want a reliable service you are going to have to have reliable vessels. There has been a lot of talk and debate about rushing this here. We all know that the Steam Packet has ageing vessels. They need to … [Inaudible] and 6180 they need to have vessels fit for purpose for the future, without a shadow of a doubt, and that is why reliability is important but that is why investment early is very necessary. The other word, ‘affordability’ – a lot of talk with regard to do we have competitive fares, do we have reasonable fares, why don’t we get the fares lowered and bring more people here. Yes, of course we want the lowest possible sea fares and, many times, you can actually buy low sea ______1973 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

6185 fares if you book in advance, but we want fair and reasonable sea fares. But do bear in mind what the User Agreement is already doing. It is going out, in terms of its capacity, at remarkably low percentages – I think it is somewhere, over the course of a year, of 30%-35% – but we also have routes that we serve to Ireland that take a dozen or two dozen people in an extremely expensive fastcraft, and that has to be paid for somewhere along the line. So, if you want lower, 6190 more competitive pricing, you need to consider which routes are actually going to be economically viable. The fastcraft is another question mark, but it is all on the basis of the TT and the special events that we have, to get people here quickly and in a fast manner. But the other word that is really vital for me is ‘sustainability’ – we talk about that a lot, don’t we, ‘sustainable’ – and this is all around the debt issue. Mr Robertshaw highlighted it and one or 6195 two others mentioned it, and there have been accusations that we as politicians are too preoccupied with that debt. We do need to be, of course we do, because we want to ensure that whoever is operating that sea route is going to be sustainable for the future. There are a few things, I think, that we would want to have in this new agreement that has been talked about here, and one of those key points is about control. I think it is pretty much 6200 agreed by all Members that we should be securing the Liverpool landing stage for a whole host of different reasons, not least that it is going to be a prime site, there is major development happening around it, we have massive historical and cultural links with Liverpool and we should continue with that – and I agree very much with that. I also agree that we should open tender that as stated in here, because this will be about creating a little Isle of Man in Liverpool, and 6205 when you arrive at that terminal you will actually be arriving with the experience of being in the Isle of Man, and that is something we really need to work on. But we also have control of our port here, don’t we? I mentioned earlier the deepwater berth. I do believe that that should be investigated and that we do need to look into that prospect, not just from a ferry point of view but also because of the potential with regard to 6210 cruise passengers. We have seen cruise ships coming to the Isle of Man these last few days, for example – beautiful weather, they can tender in and they spend money right here and it is a benefit to our economy. When the weather is not so good – and that does happen once or twice, doesn’t it, throughout the year – you cannot tender in, and therefore we lose revenue. So a deepwater berth would ensure that we had that. The other element to a deepwater berth 6215 would be the creation of the operational maintenance facilities for the renewable industry that will be arriving here in the next few years, and we do need facilities for that. So yes, it is something we should look at, but it is not necessarily part of what you have got in front of you and there is a body of work that must continue with that to actually review that particular point. Mrs Beecroft mentioned we met with the union representatives and some of the staff a few 6220 weeks ago. I think it is worth mentioning them, because of course we have had various contacts from different elements, the trustees and so forth, because there are many people who are connected to the Steam Packet past and present and the public … and we seem to join in that, this bashing that goes on with the Steam Packet. We talk about morale within the public service: what do you think the morale is like for the Steam Packet staff, who actually do a sterling job in 6225 terms of the services they try and provide for all of us, whether it be for our economy, whether it be for businesses or whether it be for us just getting on and off the Isle of Man? They do work very diligently, they do work hard and they try and deliver the best they can, and they are not at fault for the debt situation that the company is beholden to at the moment. Debt is something that we are preoccupied with. I think you have only got to consider the 6230 debates and the questions around Manx Gas, where we have done a voluntary regulation. We have asked for a return on capital employed – some of you will recognise that term, and that is a recognised term that we are questioning because it is less than 10% with Manx Gas. We do not have this with the Steam Packet, and for me, if we are to agree going forward and we are to have a draft legal agreement, we need a debt-reduction plan, we need some form of regulation, 6235 we need some form of transparency on the financial management of that Steam Packet, that it can be open, honest and transparent, which is exactly what we need to be for the people we ______1974 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

represent and so that we are bringing value to the taxpayer, because that is what we are charged with in making a decision. And at this particular stage we are really not making any decision; all we are asking to do is to agree with broad principles. That is it today. 6240 There are a number of amendments. I recognise it is a difficult decision and we want to consider having a select committee. Whoever comes back here, you can still have that select committee if you do not agree with what you see before you. So that is very possible. I think, in particular Mr Cannan’s amendment, most of those particular areas, as far as I am aware, were actually included in the review that was already conducted. 6245 So, in closing, I support the original motion as it stands before us, yet I do want to make it very clear that all we are agreeing to here is broad principles, the draft legal agreement, to which I would like some conditions tied in, as stated, to come back before Tynwald. No decision is going to be made on the detail until that particular point happens. Gura mie eu. 6250 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President. Especially given the last speech from a Member of the Council of Ministers, which was that 6255 we are just agreeing here very much to the principles, I seek that the Minister makes it very clear in his summing up whether or not the word he used in his speech, which is different from what is in the motion here, is actually a word he meant to use. The Minister said in his speech that rather than just seeking concessions from the Isle of Man Steam Packet, they must come back with concessions on things like a seven-year contract and on financial decisions. So I want a very 6260 clear indication, especially given the speech just made by a colleague in the Council of Ministers: what exactly is the current Council of Ministers’ intention regarding that very profoundly important and basic point? The second thing I wanted to draw out of the speech of the Minister who has just spoken is that two points occurred to me when he was speaking that have not really been focused on 6265 before. The first one is that mention of the return on capital employed of 10%, like the Manx Gas arrangement, introduces a whole new level to this discussion because what we have got at the minute is a User Agreement that is about standard prices, standard charges, that go up by Manx Retail Price Index each year, and having just introduced a concept that we might even have a User Agreement based on return on capital employed is a bit like me moving a motion 6270 that we need to have a general revisiting of how we go about regulating the sorts of monopolies that we have to have in the Isle of Man. So that troubles me slightly that we have got such a large question, and I want the Minister from the Department to give a very clear answer about whether the whole basis of regulation is still in question. The second point that the Minister who has just spoken made is that he talked about needing 6275 to have reliable vessels. Well, my understanding is that the Steam Packet has an obligation at the minute to operate reliable vessels until 2020, and if it chooses to exercise its option to extend to 2026 it will have to have reliable vessels operating until 2026. (Mr Malarkey: Yes.) So I just want the Minister to make it absolutely clear that his understanding from the User Agreement is that there is an obligation on the current operator, as the User Agreement holder, 6280 to provide reliable vessels to service a very profitable route, the Isle of Man to Liverpool … the Isle of Man to Heysham route, sorry, until 2026 if the User Agreement runs its course. I wanted to stress that the arguments made from their own perspective by the pensioners and the professionals involved in the Steam Packet management – because they are excellent managers, coping with difficult seas and a difficult environment – and the arguments expressed 6285 by the seafarers about worse terms that come to exist, are all very genuine interests, but I want the Minister to assure me that those sorts of interests could be protected in any renegotiation in the way that was described, particularly perhaps by Mr Cannan, in terms of protecting the pensioners’ interests and the workers’ interests by terms put into any future agreement. ______1975 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

I just wanted to say, and it has come across very clearly from others, so I will not dwell on this 6290 point, but I do not see a loyalty from this Hon. Court towards the professional distressed-debt investors. Their interests are not the sort of investors … I feel passionately about the pensioners and I feel passionately about the workers. I want to be completely contractually bound by any contracts that exist between us and the people outside the Island with an interest, but that does not mean that we have to take into account primarily those interests. Our interests are the 6295 interests of the Island, our nation and the people who live in it. That comes to the point I wanted to make about competition and what I am going to call ‘legacy issues’ and about the whole nature of a tender, because I have always said, and everybody will have heard me say this before, because we have a natural monopoly, we have to have a monopoly provider it seems, we need competition for the market if we cannot have it in 6300 the market. So, in principle, I am passionately in favour of having a tender. I did say to the Chair of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, probably 10 years ago, that the Steam Packet Company would be in a hell of a lot better position if it won a fair and competitive tender, (Mr Malarkey: Yes, absolutely.) and that has been my position for 10 years. I am trying to be persuaded that we have had the beginnings of a fair and competitive tender. This is the point I 6305 want to make to those who talk about the Christmas call for expressions of interest. Even though it was a Christmas call for expressions of interest when lots of people are away, we did actually get lots of people who were interested and we did get three people who seemed to be able to provide a service. So the main point to learn from that is there is a market for people who could actually provide it, despite the limits, and so therefore we need to make sure that the 6310 Steam Packet is in the best position if it wins a competitive tender, because there has been a fair competition for the market because we cannot have one in the market. That is the next point I want to make, which is that I think this issue is a bit like the public sector pensions issue: we have basically got to divide the issue into two: we have got the best position for the Isle of Man in the future, and then we have got the legacy issue to deal with. 6315 That is it in a nutshell and I genuinely think, from the distressed-debt company’s interests through to the pensioners’ interests through to the Island’s interests, everybody’s interests, the fairest way to deal with the legacy issue is through an open, transparent and competitive tender. However, we go forward with this issue – whether it be through a select committee or whether we leave it to Government, who are assuring us that everything is going to come back 6320 here for decision, all three aspects … if we really do get that assurance I just want to raise some other issues that need to be considered in coming months and years. The first one is to do with prices. I have hinted at it already with the Manx Retail Price Index versus this new concept of a return on capital employed, but there is more to it on that because we are assured that standard prices for freight have gone down by 40%, and because the Steam 6325 Packet has the ability to raise prices every year by the Manx Retail Price Index, that is incredibly serious for our Island. If there is anything that is being lost in the way that that regulatory agreement has been drafted in the past for the benefit of our Island, we need to identify it at this stage. There are at least two ways that we need to clarify the exact situation and look for the evidence and then analyse the evidence and draw the proper conclusions from it. 6330 The first one is the whole basis of running the User Agreement on Manx RPI. I know there is a consultation being issued by the Cabinet Office to establish that very point, and it is absolutely crucial. I understand that Condor does not have the same arrangement and the same pricing basis in other islands, so there are alternatives. The second one is exactly what does ‘the average has gone down by 40%’ mean for real 6335 prices that real Manx people pay in real Manx shops when they buy things, because it is so vital, the consumer goods and the productive goods that come over to our Island. I understand it could be that box trailers rather than flat decks have gone down by more, and it could be that certain types of businesses have got the benefit rather than other types of business, and I would like to think that the economists in the Cabinet Office can go and actually begin an investigation 6340 of seeing whether we need to use the Fair Trading Act, specifically section 19, to begin to work ______1976 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

out whether or not we actually need to have an anti-competitive investigation from using the Fair Trading Act. The second point I want to raise very specifically is I understand that, in part driven by the new sulphur emissions regime that is coming in in 2020, the technology in the northern seas is 6345 changing quite profoundly. So, for instance, in Norway there has been a massive shift over to boats being driven by derivatives of natural gas rather than traditional marine diesels. I am not a technical person, but I understand that to be the case. Therefore, is it really the right time now to be buying boats? Given that the technology is currently being established and proven in other waters, would we not be better off buying new boats in the early part of the next decade, when 6350 we have got another five years of experience of these new technologies? So that is another thing that somebody technical needs to investigate. The third point is that my understanding is that there are issues in the financial markets, so I cannot help but notice, if you just go and look through Nuvo Bank in the Wall Street Journal, you will see things like credit default swaps challenges, you will see things to do with the way that 6355 the distressed-debt equity market is operating at the minute. So, in summary, I have not yet made up my mind how I will vote. (Laughter) I am looking for strong guidance from my Minister, but what I absolutely want to hear from my Minister is a clear statement that even if this vote goes on behalf of Government this is not a shoe-in for the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, this is serious negotiations, we have serious investigations 6360 to do in all sorts of areas; and regardless of the vote, I think everybody should go out and understand that we have got lots of questions still to be answered in the coming years before the current User Agreement comes to its expiration. Thank you very much, Mr President, Hon. Members.

6365 The President: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen, to speak to Mr Cannan’s amendment.

Mr Cregeen: Just on a point of clarity, Mr President, we have had a number of Members and Ministers looking for clarity from the Minister to go off piste from what he has got here on his 6370 motion set down before us. They are wanting clarity, they are wanting other things outside the motion set down. Could you give some advice on whether it is what the Minister says or actually what is down on the Order Paper for approval, first of all?

The President: That is a political question. (Laughter) How you interpret Members’ 6375 comments is entirely up to you; it is not for me to offer guidance as to what Members mean in relation to points of the debate. But, to assist, I will invite Mr Gawne.

The Minister: I am happy to confirm that, if Members remember all that way back, when I introduced this debate I asked specifically for comments, views and requirements that Members 6380 would have for us to carry on in any further consideration of these matters. I specifically asked for that, so I am delighted that those Members have come forward with those things that we could include in terms of our ongoing consideration of the matter; that is exactly what I was looking for.

______1977 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. 6385 Speaking to the amendment from Mr Cannan, it says ‘an independent economic appraisal is required which shall assess …’ and one of the points is associated financial issues. When you look across to the original motion, down at (g) it says:

requires the Department to seek further concessions from IOMSPCo in relation to break clauses and the financial transparency of the company in the final Strategic Sea Services Agreement.

A select committee would actually do all those points that Hon. Members are saying they wish to have to ensure we get the best deal. It is actually saying that the committee can go out 6390 and review the financial performance, it can come back with recommendations to say to Mr Thomas, when he was talking about the Manx Gas agreement, that there is only a certain level of profit to that company as it is running a monopoly. So the amendment by Mr Cannan is actually saying all the things that Hon. Members are wanting assurances for, and if you have that committee, which would be appointed in 6395 November, it will be very beneficial, I think, to the Department to come forward with those recommendations that will give a clear indication of where this parliament should go. The other thing that it can do is take public evidence, which will go down with the same support that Mr Gawne says about bringing politics back to the people. By bringing that public consultation in, you can bring the public in and ask for their views. 6400 We have had a number of Members say that they have heard nothing. I have had at least 60 people tell me don’t sign up to this, get the best deal you can, there’s no rush – (A Member: How many?) about 60, (A Member: Sixty?) – which is similar to some of the comments that came back to that website.

6405 Mr Quirk: I haven’t had any.

Mr Cregeen: Well, you want to get out more! (Laughter and interjection)

The President: Hon. Members. 6410 Mr Quirk: He started it.

Mr Cregeen: Mr President, I think the amendment from Mr Cannan builds on my amendment and I would urge Members to support both. 6415 Thank you.

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

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think the important thing today is not to allow one of the things 6420 that has affected this Island for too long as far as its economy is concerned, and that is what we call fiefdomism and now people recognise it as crony capitalism. Today we have got to realise that this has such fundamental implications for the Island’s economy. We heard the previous speaker talk about the fact that we need to see the accounts, but the problem is … I was here when the first User Agreement was signed and I was horrified 6425 that we could end up with a situation where we handed over the opportunity for freedom to flourish for the few and for the rest of us to have to pay for it. When we talk about the debt, the debt is not because of the company, the debt is not because of the workers, the debt is not because of the companies that own it; the debt is there because we created the debt when we did the original User Agreement. We had a company that 6430 was worth about £60 million, and because we gave them that piece of paper we ended up putting another £180 million on the company. And Hamish might not like to be outed here – he

______1978 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

is actually a sympathiser of mine over the years – but of course they did very well out of that deal. I have to be honest with you: that is capitalism. Capitalism is about minimum effort for 6435 maximum reward. But we in this Chamber are supposed to be the ones who try to do the socially right thing in order to make sure that big business does not take advantage of individuals who cannot stand up for themselves. So I think today that we need to think about it. We hear from the Member talking about the accounts. We cannot see the accounts – a 2006 company. We can get stuff off the other companies, but we cannot see where the loss leaders 6440 are. We would not even know where the real profit is as far as this company is concerned. What I am concerned about, as the only one who stood out … And I do remind my friend, the ex-Member of the Liberal Vannin Party in South Douglas, we took a big kicking in the previous administration – before he defected to the Government side – from the Brown administration, (Interjection) but we actually shamed people into this Court because we had scandal after 6445 scandal after scandal. I think what we are talking about today is the potential of what is a £1½ billion turnover … £150 million, £200 million. I have no problem with the company; they are there to make profits and I am there to tax them. That is capitalism; that is how good government works. My question that has to be asked is whether we are falling into the same trap that we did the 6450 last time. It amazes me, Eaghtyrane, with the condescending way some of us are treated, with our Dolphin certificates, (Interjections) but the fact of the matter is that on that occasion we ended up signing a piece of paper that was then hawked around and we ended up with the debt that is still having to be dealt with today. One was on one’s own against the madness in this Court and the fact that if I could see it, why couldn’t others? 6455 My concern today, hon. mover of this amendment … I was thinking of putting an amendment, because one thing I was worried about, especially when I hear the Deputy Speaker talk about the Peel Holdings Group as if they are some sort of Father Christmas organisation … They are hard businessmen. The only thing I was going to support in this thing was I was going to move an amendment to make it that the Strategic Sea Services Agreement supports in principle 6460 the Department spending the sum of not exceeding £3.5 million for the purchase of the site of the Princes’ Half Tide Dock, Liverpool, on the understanding that the terms of the purchase will be submitted to Tynwald for detailed approval. I would like the Minister to just clarify that we can have that assurance, so that we do not end up finding that the Deputy Speaker’s Father Christmas turns out to be Jack the Ripper and 6465 we end up being slashed, as far as the taxpayer is concerned. I just hope that you can give that sort of undertaking as far as that is concerned and I would hope that you would come back with an agreement … because I have seen too many agreements over 30 years here where I have heard the same pantomime of different gangs in here saying, ‘Oh, yes it is!’ then we find out ‘Oh, no it isn’t!’ And who pays for it? It is the taxpayer that pays for it – or in this case, the 6470 consumer, as far as the User Agreement is concerned. So I do hope the Minister will consider that, because I think it is important that we do address that issue. Looking through some of the points that were raised by different Members … I was the only Member who voted against the original mess that we have been trying to haul ourselves out of for the last 20 years. I have no argument, Eaghtyrane. I would love the management to be in a 6475 different corporate entity as far as running the Steam Packet is concerned. I have got no problem with the management. I have had hissy fits with them. They have all thought that I am personalising it, that I am anti the Steam Packet. I am not anti the Steam Packet; I am anti bad governance that creates crony capitalism and creates every consumer on this Island to have to pay for it. 6480 Remember, Hon. Members, that today you are talking about something that has the potential of a £1 billion or £1½ billion turnover over the lifetime of this contract, if it just ends up being nodded through at a later date.

______1979 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

I believe that the Hon. Member for Peel needs to actually start living in our world, the world that creates … He might pull funny faces, but the reality is look at the track record. 6485 I think Minister Skelly needs to consider that one of the biggest problems that we have got, and that we are going to be in in the next administration, is the fact of how we are going to create that environment to get the economy going. We have already got the toxicity of energy costs, we have allowed an abusive cartel as far as property is concerned in the rental market, we have got the situation with freight charges. 6490 I love the Steam Packet, as far the passengers are concerned. I think it is fantastic for what I can get away off the Island as a foot passenger. But it is not about what is good for me; it is what is good for the Isle of Man. And the freight charges, no matter what they say, have a major effect. We tried, Eaghtyrane, to get Lidl to come onto the Island, and the reason they would not come is they said the freight charges were too dear. (A Member: Hear, hear.) My constituent 6495 worked hard on this issue and it would have had a major effect on the ever-decreasing spending power of our citizens, with the ever-increasing costs of our white elephants that are coming home to roost. The fact is that this situation, as far as this debate is concerned, is one of the most important things, and I think Minister Skelly should be considering whether there are better options. I think when he talks about the history of this 1830 company, that company does 6500 not exist now, and we need to realise that: that company does not exist now. In my opinion … and admittedly I have to say the only thing that I believe should be supported is that the Department, on the Hon. Member for South Douglas’ amendment, ‘approves the Department preparing a draft legal agreement to cover the development of a new Strategic Sea Service Agreement to be brought back to Tynwald for final approval’ and similarly, 6505 the ‘alternative ownership models should be investigated and a report produced for debate and decision by Tynwald’, because I actually believe that there is an opportunity here. We have been blessed in this Court. We have done our best, but unfortunately we have been in the minority. We have watched the biggest economic boom being blown. The fact is the next administration will not be able to live on the fact that money grows on 6510 trees and they are going to have to look at new ways of re-floating the economy, because if we do not get freight charges at a more realistic price … I know we are not going to get heavy engineering on the Island, but what we can get is light, high-value products being produced on the Island and exported. At the moment … I have listened to people over the last 20 years who say, ‘We would come to the Isle of Man, but freight charges are too dear.’ Admittedly, some of 6515 them have been very fortunate, and I am not complaining about the freight charges – they are cheaper than they were a couple of years ago, but that was because of the device of having some competition with Mezeron. Hon. Members, I think you need to think about this. We have also had the input from the Hon. Member for East Douglas, Mr Robertshaw, about the deepwater berth. If we look at other ways of how we are going to address this issue long 6520 term, one thing that we are going to have to look at, as far as the economy is concerned, is the haemorrhaging of money out of the Isle of Man – and money is haemorrhaging out of the Isle of Man under the present system. The profit is away from this Island. What we need to be looking at, with any assessment as far as any proposal for a Strategic Sea Service Agreement, is whether we should be looking at the other aspects, that some of us have been arguing about, where you 6525 have the shares that can actually change the Articles of Association owned by the Government and the shares actually fund it and get the profit with limitations on the ownership being on the Island, and make sure that no one individually can have more than ½% of the asset, of the control of the company, to make sure that it does not … and it cannot be sold on, because of those Articles of Association. That is the way, I believe, Eaghtyrane, that we might be able to find 6530 a way of funding a deepwater berth, which I believe, more likely, is something … Particularly with Liverpool, with its increased trade as far as the cruise liners are concerned, that might be the way forward if we could come up with a new mechanism. That is why I think that really the only show in town is, yes, let’s have the Department come along with a draft agreement to cover the development of a new Strategic Sea Services ______1980 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

6535 Agreement, but also let’s look at the alternative ownership models that could produce the right decision. I believe that this Court will be folly if it does not actually support the amendment as far as the Hon. Member for South Douglas, because that is the most flexible, sensible way forward. Hon. Members, you might laugh, you might wake up at the Liberal Vannin Party or whatever, 6540 but there is a credible, alternative way of dealing with it. What is even more important, Eaghtyrane … I hope the Minister for Economic Development considers that this could be a mechanism of designing the re-floating of the economy. The one thing we do not want with any proposal over the User Agreement is to add it to the ridiculous costs for telecommunications, the ridiculous costs for energy, the ridiculous costs when you 6545 come to set up here when we were arguing against Government not trying to compete with the private sector on rental property in the private sector for office accommodation. Please, let’s rise above the fact that it is the Hon. Member for South Douglas. I believe this is a sensible way forward. I really think that this is the only show in town. What we do not want, and what I do not want, Eaghtyrane … and I have listened in here, and then the problem is some 6550 of us are so stretched because we have got no equality of arms in here, with not being part of the executive club … that you look so often where you find a situation where they promise one thing and they do another. What I do not want to see is any vote in here being said that this a fait accompli, that that is what is going to happen when it comes back to Tynwald. Hon. Members, this is a very important debate. We got it very badly wrong the first time 6555 around: we ended up creating the debt. Let’s not try and rewrite history. It was our fault. Let’s make sure that we do not repeat that history. Remember, that will be the most important thing, because you are not going to have the luxury of the boom days that we were blessed with, with my good friend the Ard-shirveishagh, the Chief Minister, and Mr Cretney, when we came in. We saw it lifting the right way. 6560 There is an opportunity here. Do not throw it away with the amendment, particularly the second part of the amendment, for the Hon. Member for South Douglas.

Standing Order 1.2(2) suspended to complete Item 8

The President: Hon. Members, Standing Orders state that the business of the day shall terminate no later than 8 p.m. Just to assist the Court, I have one more Member wishing to contribute before I invite the mover to sum up. 6565 Mr Watterson.

Mr Watterson: Mr President, could l move that we complete this Item on the Order Paper before we adjourn for the evening.

6570 Mr Quirk: I am happy to second, sir.

The President: Is that agreed, Hon. Members?

Members: Agreed. 6575 The President: Are we absolutely clear: we are completing this Item and then adjourning until tomorrow?

Members: Agreed. 6580 The President: Fine, if that is agreed. Thank you, Hon. Members. ______1981 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Strategic Sea Services Agreement – Debate continued – Amended motion carried

The President: Mr Robertshaw to speak to the amendment.

6585 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr President. Yes, to the amendment by the Member for Michael. We heard from the Minister, when he was clarifying something in exchange with you, that he was very anxious to hear ideas from Hon. Members today about this hugely important matter. What I would ask, Mr President, is that when they are considering the amendment from the 6590 Member for Michael they take into account that a number of Members, such as the Minister for Economic Development and the Member for West Douglas, have brought some very good ideas into the debate in response to the Minister for DoI’s request to get ideas forward. What I would ask Members to think about when they come to actually vote is: is there now a choice between the harness that the original motion places before us, that almost begins to 6595 exclude the very ideas that the Minister said he is seeking, or does a series of amendments, concluded by the Member for Michael’s amendment, actually open it up enough in order for us all then to embrace the ideas that we have heard this afternoon? I think that is the choice that we have before us: do we embrace the ideas that the Minister has requested and invited, and, if so, we go with the amendments; or do we close this down and put ourselves on a conveyor belt 6600 to a future which we can no longer control? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

6605 Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr President. Just a few brief comments to make. Firstly, I would start off from a position of competitive tendering, shared with my good friend and the Hon. Member for West Douglas, Mr Thomas. It was very pleasing to see that there were several people who did show expressions of interest for it. I guess on the other side of the coin, I do sometimes wonder, however, that, in terms of 6610 another company coming in to provide a service of a private enterprise, whether they would wish to put themselves forward and be subjected to the level of public criticism and the parliamentary scrutiny and criticism as well, because I suspect they may probably reflect and consider on that. I think that does need to be balanced off a little bit. I would agree that it is absolutely essential and vital that we have got to get this future 6615 agreement absolutely right and as best as we possibly can. I would like, when the Minister does do his summing up, that the motion that he has put down from the Government actually be used as a negotiating mechanism in order to further his interactions and dealing with the Steam Packet, because I am quite sure, and everybody would acknowledge, that improvements can be made. I would just like him to give that assurance that he will be using that and that it is his 6620 absolute intention and the Government’s intention to do that. I think that the devil is in the detail, as they say, and there are things … Noting what is in the document itself, simple things like if you look at the ships that have been proposed, what kind of ships? At the moment and what we have had, I do not think from a passenger’s perspective it has served the Island too well. As we know, the Ben my Chree, in my view, is a converted 6625 freighter, and I do not think that passengers find that to be the experience that they would expect. I think that looking forward we need, from a passenger’s perspective, a ship that is more weighted towards the passenger experience. We also need to recognise the risks of turning this into some sort of massive marathon. It could well be the case that the Steam Packet could retract back to their minimum delivery that 6630 they have to give under their User Agreement. I guess an example of that is the Arrow, which ______1982 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

has been brought in beyond the User Agreement: if this turns into a marathon, would that stay or would it go? Of course, then we are losing something else. As a commercial enterprise company they would be quite entitled to do that, so we have to recognise that there are risks in turning this into a marathon. So we need to be very clear in terms of when the Minister is doing 6635 his negotiating and also from a parliamentary perspective as well. I did take the opportunity to go down to the Steam Packet and speak to the Chief Executive and his staff, and I went through various areas that I had questions on. In my conversation with him, one of the things I did ask was – and it has been brought up in the debate today – with regard to the independent external scrutiny of the offer and of the proposal that they have put 6640 forward. I did not note it in the document and I do not believe it has been communicated in the public. I do not believe the Minister has relayed it, but my question was about that independent scrutiny. The Steam Packet informed me at my meeting that the proposal, the offer, had been put out through the PricewaterhouseCoopers mill for independent scrutiny and it had that, yet it is not actually put anywhere in the document, and I did raise that. The Minister, when he does 6645 his summing up, if he can please give some clarity that that actually is the case. That is what I was told by the Steam Packet: that it had gone to PricewaterhouseCoopers for independent scrutiny, and the business case itself. If that is the case, then I presume that there must be something that he has received back, or the Steam Packet have obviously received, that has gone back to the Department in terms of … Is there some sort of a report out there? There will 6650 be something, obviously, from PricewaterhouseCoopers that they have done this independent appraisal and the scrutiny. My question is why … I do not believe that I have heard that that actually has happened. So that is the other point that he can please clarify. I think, again, from the negotiating point of view, we need further negotiation and some transparency surrounding, obviously … like they varied the offers, the freighting which has been 6655 brought up in the debate. I think there are lots of things that the Minister still has to do, going forwards on this, but I will listen to his summing up on this, because I am finely balanced on my vote. But I will wait to hear his comment, if he could.

6660 The President: I call on the Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Thank you, Mr President. I only want to make one or two points, really, which are actually more to correct history than to add a great deal more to the debate, because I will be supporting the resolution before us 6665 with possibly one or two amendments. There are only one or two of us left in this Hon. Court, Mr President, who can remember times back in the 1980s and early 1990s. I had the great pleasure, if you can call it that, of being Tourism Minister at the end of the 1980s for eight years until the mid-1990s. That really was over the period of a terrible decline in tourism, a rapid decline in tourism, partly because the 6670 tastes of tourists in those days were changing, but it was also largely fuelled … and the Member for East Douglas, I am sure – who shared many an argument with me at that time – will agree with me that lot of it was down to the extremely bad management of the Steam Packet at that point. This is a point in time, Mr President, when the management and ownership of the Steam Packet was in Manx hands, and that was probably the worst period that I can remember of the 6675 Steam Packet being operated. People may not recognise it now, but the saviour of the Steam Packet really at that point was Jim Sherwood’s arrival on the Island, who brought investment and stability to the company. That coincided, in 1995, with the introduction of the first User Agreement. I have to say Mr Karran, the Hon. Member for Onchan’s memory fails him, I think, at this point because I was fiercely 6680 opposed to the User Agreement at that time, as were a number of other Members in this Chamber, (Interjection by Mr Karran) because we had had a very unpleasant experience for a number of years with the management of the Steam Packet Company, which nearly brought the ______1983 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

tourist industry to its knees. I was very concerned at that time that we would enter into a long- term User Agreement with a company which had a record of letting down the economy of the 6685 Island. However, I will hold my hands up and say although I was bitterly opposed to the User Agreement, it was probably the best thing that happened to the Steam Packet Company during that period. It brought stability, it brought a fair degree of certainty of service right through the 1990s into the early noughties. I just forget when the next User Agreement was drawn up – the 6690 early noughties, I think – and that is the one which is being accused now of handing huge profits on a plate to Macquarie. It is not quite the same as that. Coinciding with the second User Agreement, if I remember correctly, was a massive building boom in the Island at that point: the Hospital was being built; there were a whole raft of other major construction projects going on at the same time. The amount of freight coming into the 6695 Island during that period was the highest it has ever been in its history, it was huge, and it was on the wrong assumptions that were made at that time, that that level of freight business would continue, that Macquarie pitched their share bid for the company at that point. It was completely wrong; they had done their sums completely wrong. There was no way at all that the Isle of Man could maintain that level of business beyond that immediate period. It was then 6700 caught up with the banking crisis and the crisis in capitalism generally, which showed up the predatory nature of the type of business that Macquarie carried out, and from that the rest is history. We know what happened to the User Agreement. We know what happened to the value of the shares. The point I am making, Mr President, is the story which is being painted, that Manx 6705 management is good, that off-Island ownership is bad, and the landmarks of the development of the Steam Packet over the last few years are not quite as accurate as have been painted. There is a different stance we need to take on that, and I think we need to bear that in mind if we go forward with a new User Agreement. The concept of the User Agreement is not bad. It has worked very well for the Isle of Man in 6710 the past, and in fact in many ways it has stabilised not just the shipping industry but also the tourist industry during that period, and bit by bit it has started to claw its way back again. So, if we go about this in the right way we will have a new User Agreement. Whether it is with the Steam Packet or whether it is another body is for the next Tynwald to decide on, and I will not argue one way or the other on that. I do believe, though, that whilst there is, from time to time, 6715 angry sentiment in this Hon. Court about the Steam Packet, some of it is actually justified with the threats and the blackmailing tactics of the company, who seem to believe that this is the way that they should negotiate with Government. Government, on such a sensitive issue, cannot negotiate under these sort of pressures. Totally transparent though those pressures might be, they do not help the situation when we are trying to find a solution which has got to be for the 6720 benefit of the Island, and indeed for the company, and indeed, of course, for the shareholders as well. So I would ask the Steam Packet Company to please take note of the concerns that Members have said in this Hon. Chamber and to back off from some of the stupidity which we read in the paper, together with the letters which we get from various people. That does not help the situation in what is an extremely difficult and complex set of negotiations which will set 6725 the pattern, for freight business in particular for the Island, for the next 10 or 20 years. I do believe the measures taken by the Minister are the right way forward, and I think there is an agreement in this Hon. Chamber that the immediate need is to secure the land in Liverpool, the £3.5 million. I do not think there is any disagreement on that and I would strongly support that. But I would ask Members to please listen to the Minister when he replies to this. A lot of 6730 thought has gone into it. The story which has been painted by various people so far is not quite as black and white as it might have been presented; the story is actually very different from that, and unless you lived through that period you do not exactly know the problems we had to face. I would urge Hon. Members to please support the resolution put forward by the Minister. Please give your support to the purchase of the land at least, so we can start to move things on a ______1984 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

6735 bit further. If, in fact, Members believe that further strength needs to be given to the Minister’s resolution, I would support, possibly, Mr Cannan’s. I beg to move – no, I beg to support, though.

The President: I call on the mover to reply to the debate. Mr Gawne, please. 6740 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Are you sitting comfortably? First of all I would like to thank my surprised seconder. It was almost a very swift debate, wasn’t it! Fortunately for Mr Harmer, later on he did redeem himself as the Member for Ports, (Laughter) and I think he still has that role, but perhaps I should have reminded him earlier. 6745 I think I have had the debate that I was looking for, you might be surprised to learn. I wanted to get Tynwald’s feedback. I did not have to come to Tynwald and ask whether I could continue negotiating with the Isle of Man Steam Packet. I did not have to do that; I wanted to do it, because I wanted to get your views and I wanted them on Hansard so that when we go and continue any discussions – assuming this is the way we end up – those discussions will be on 6750 Hansard, or our views are on Hansard, and I can use those in discussion with the Steam Packet. So I did not have to come here for that. I did have to come in relation to the £3.5 million for Liverpool, which we have all agreed pretty much, from what I can see. I did not have to come and ask you about a strategy, but actually it was the Hon. Member for Michael who came forward with that idea in one our sessions, workshops, that we had, and I thought yes, that is 6755 entirely the right thing to do, we should have a clear strategy. So, I have rushed you into asking you for permission to carry on doing something I could have done anyway. That pretty much sums up the debate, as far as I can see, from the people who have perhaps been a little bit negative. I could do it anyway, but what you have done is you have given me the information that I needed. You have given me your views. It is on Hansard now and I can use that, or 6760 whoever the new Infrastructure Minister is can use that as he develops policy. (A Member: Or she!) I am sure Hon. Members who have put so much thought into their contributions would be disappointed, or dismayed even, if I did not respond to them, so I will do that before finally summing up. 6765 In relation to Mrs Beecroft, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, I believe that she has put some reasonable amendments forward. I believe that the Department, through the working group, has already done a lot of this work, but I accept that perhaps we need to provide more information. We are more than happy to do that and more than happy to investigate the two items that the Hon. Member for Douglas South suggests, particularly in relation to the 6770 simultaneously or alternative ownership models. That is something that the working group has done, but we can provide far more information on that now that we know that that is what Tynwald is looking for. In relation to approving the Department preparing a draft legal agreement to cover the development of a new Strategic Sea Services Agreement to be brought back to Tynwald for final 6775 approval, in essence that is an entirely reasonable thing to do. We can have on the shelf a proposed Strategic Sea Services User Agreement. If we do not reach an agreement with Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, we can always use that with any other operator who was successful in a tendering exercise, if that is the route that Tynwald, after the election, chooses to go down. So I am comfortable with those amendments – he says, putting them in the bin, 6780 (Laughter) but that is only because that is the easiest place to find to put them! The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk: I do thank him. It is one of the rare occasions where he has praised the Minister, I think he said, for full engagement with Members, and I thank him for that. He says we should remember this is a private company, and yes, that is true, we should remember it is a private company. But the private company should remember that if we go 6785 down the route that is being suggested we are giving that private company a very long and secure licence to operate on a service, and the quid pro quo for the private company is that ______1985 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

perhaps that private company should do pretty much what we are saying they should in the recommendations and provide more financial information than a normal private company would do if it were just a private company competing in a normal way. But it is not: it is a private 6790 company potentially competing with a secure licence from Government. I think that is where the difference lies there. I was going to thank Mr Joughin for his comments, but I think all he did was second Mrs Beecroft’s amendment in the end. Mr Cregeen … and this was a common theme that developed: I am rushing you into asking 6795 you to agree to let me carry on doing something that I could have done anyway. Yes, that is true, I am rushing you into that because there is an election taking place and because I do not want all the hard work that we have done so far to be lost just because there is an election coming through. So I have come back and said let’s not tie the hands of the next administration, let’s recognise that this work has been done so far and then let’s continue along that route. 6800 We have heard a lot about the way in which the company has been structured and the debt. We have also heard some selective quoting from two Members of the Working Group, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey, and the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen, who were both Members of the Department’s working party, as indeed were the Hon. Members for Glenfaba, Mr Boot, and the Hon. Member for Peel, Mr Harmer. But what we 6805 had was very selective quoting from the first two Hon. Members and a more comprehensive set of quotes from the other two. The selective quoting was very much about the experts saying what we should and what we should not do. Actually, what Park Partners said was – and I think the Hon. Member for Peel mentioned this – that we should not rush into any potential purchase of the Steam Packet Company. That is quite different to what the Hon. Member for Malew and 6810 Santon and the Hon. Member for Douglas South said, but I am sure that is just age perhaps creeping up on them and perhaps forgetting exactly what was said. Again, I do not think we are rushing this. We have been talking about this for some time. I think it was the Chief Minister who requested, in the first instance, that the Department talked to the Steam Packet about getting some more resilience when there were some issues about 6815 four or five years ago in relation to Steam Packet vessels not sailing around Christmas time. I, perhaps mischievously – is that the word? – described this as ‘Baby-leaf Saladgate’: there was the risk that we were going to be without baby-leaf salad for the whole of the Christmas period. Toilet rolls were also part of this. The Steam Packet actually came forward and said, ‘We will sort that out. We will get a backup vessel, the Arrow, and we will work up some potential new 6820 agreement or arrangement.’ So we asked the Steam Packet. If we, at this stage, refuse even to have the matter debated in Tynwald, I think it will be a bit unfair of us, having asked the Steam Packet in the first place would they come forward with something, for us to then not to even debate it. So I think it is important, just out of common courtesy, that we do that. As it happens, I do struggle a little bit to understand exactly what it is that is being amended 6825 by the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon. I do not feel that is necessarily his fault, but it is hard in the way this amendment has been drafted for us to see what has been amended from the original motion. I think that I agree with the vast majority of the Hon. Member’s amendments. I quite readily accept that we remove the ‘challenging Irish Sea’ to a ‘challenging sea environment’. That does not seem to be unreasonable to me. I forget what … The trouble is I 6830 cannot really find on a piece of paper what exactly has been amended to say that I am happy with it. I sort of get the (e), (h) thing, although they are pretty much the same thing. Perhaps if a few words had been added onto (e) rather than (h) being added in in the way that it has been, that would have been easier to understand. So most of this I am comfortable with. There is an issue though, and that issue is should a committee of Tynwald, effectively 6835 parliament, be making executive decisions, and in my view it should not – that is why we have the separation: we have Government doing executive functions and cracking on and making decisions, and we have parliament then scrutinising those decisions. That is a decision we took

______1986 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

when we introduced the ministerial government system and I think that is something that we should be doing. 6840 That is not to say that there is not a scrutiny role in all this for Tynwald – absolutely there is and I would have no particular concern if a select committee was established in November to look into the progress that had been made by that time. But I think the unfortunate thing about the way in which the motion is worded is that we are effectively tying the hands of a future Tynwald by saying we have decided at this Tynwald that we are going to set up a select 6845 committee but we are not going to say who is on it. It kind of then implies … Well, where does that leave the Government? Does the executive have to wait until November before it can do anything because a committee may or may not be being set up? I am not absolutely clear about that. It is also not absolutely clear what it is that the committee is being set up to do. Is it to review 6850 what the Department has agreed or negotiated? If that is the case, then surely we need to allow the Department to do the negotiations before the select committee reviews it. So I think I would be loathe at this stage to support the five-Member committee, but if the good people of Arbory, Castletown and Malew choose to re-elect me, then I would probably support that at the time, when a proper case could be made for the establishment of a committee. That committee can 6855 then review the work that the Department develops. So, in essence I think, but it is not absolutely clear in the way that this amendment has been drafted, I can agree to everything else apart from the committee. I would have liked to have supported the Hon. Member’s approach, but I just find it a little bit odd that we are agreeing now to a committee and it is possible that all the Keys’ Members may not be here next time and 6860 there may be a totally different view in November Tynwald as to whether a committee is the right way forward or not. So we are making a decision for a new Tynwald, which to my mind is inappropriate at this stage.

Mr Malarkey and Mr Turner: That is what you are doing! 6865 The Minister: As far as Mr Cannan’s amendment is concerned, my initial reaction is we have done all that, but obviously the Hon. Member for Michael is not aware of all the work that we have done. So I would have, again, no problem in the Department doing an independent review. We have already brought in an independent person to work with us. We could get a report 6870 developed which will deal with all the aspects that have been dealt with in this debate – all the different ownerships options, the requirements for a ferry, all the items listed, really, in Mr Cannan’s amendment. I cannot see any problem with that and would again be happy to support that. In effect, as far as all the amendments are concerned, in my view, I do not have a problem 6875 supporting them, apart from the committee; and I am not quite sure, because of the way that the amendment for Mr Cregeen is worded, whether it is possible for me to support all the other bits but not the committee bit. Again, it is quite an unusual way of drafting a set of amendments, so I do not understand whether that is possible. I hope that perhaps we could vote on that part separately. I do not think we would need to vote on all the parts separately, because most of the 6880 bits I do not think anyone would have a particular problem with, but again I will follow your lead on that, Eaghtyrane. So, what else can we talk about? Mr Malarkey, again, was a Member of the working party. The working party did agree the way forward that we have come to Tynwald with. There were, interestingly, five Tynwald Members on that working party, (Interjection by Mr Malarkey) six 6885 including myself – probably even more Members than we are proposing for this select committee. We reviewed it and four of the Tynwald Members and two of the non-Tynwald members supported the way forward. It is fair to say that the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey, and the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen, did not support – (Interjection) Well, did not support it all. ______1987 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

6890 Mr Malarkey: There were three for, three against.

The Minister: Mr Thomas supported some – okay. Again, there is talk of us forcing things and rushing things through. Again, our expert adviser from Park Partners talked about how infrastructure companies were being traded regularly in 6895 the way that the Steam Packet was traded at the time the User Agreement was introduced; this was a common thing. Introducing debt into a company to pay for assets was very common at the time, so it is not unique to the Isle of Man. That is not to justify it, necessarily. That is not to say that perhaps if we had done things differently things would have been better, because they may well have been … 6900 What else did Mr Malarkey go on about … the working group did not consider all the options – and yet on paragraph 75 of the Report we describe the options that we did consider. They ranged from nationalisation of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, acquisition of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company via a company limited by guarantee, franchising of the Isle of Man ferry services, continuing with the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company status quo until expiry of 6905 the User Agreement or renegotiation of the Linkspan User Agreement beyond 2026. So quite a lot of options were considered by the Strategic Sea Services Working Group. I do concede that all the detail was not included in the 26-page Report that we produced. We could have put in a bumper, several-hundred-page offering if that is what Tynwald Members wanted. It would appear that a little bit more detail was what was required. 6910 Again, the debt at this stage of the debate was £106 million, but by the time we got to the Hon. Member for Douglas East’s input it was down to £95 million. I was quite hoping that if the debate went on long enough it would have dropped even further, but those were the only two mentions of the debt! Obviously, I enjoyed the Hon. Member for Glenfaba’s remarks – Mr Boot. He was indeed 6915 elected with concerns. I remember reading his manifesto and noting those concerns, so I was pleased that we were able to reach an agreement that he should join us on the working group. He explained things, I believe in a more balanced way, as to what the working group had actually considered. It was not just focusing on the bits that he wanted to say; it was focusing on the whole of the working group’s discussions. But, as he rightly points out, and as I have pointed out 6920 time and time again, there was no commitment … The only commitment that we are making here is the £3.5 million for the landing stage, or for the site. We are not making any other commitment, other than perhaps coming back with a report or a new policy, a new strategy, for strategic sea services. We are not committing to definitely reaching an agreement and definitely supporting a new agreement with the Steam Packet. We are absolutely not committing to that. 6925 What we are saying is we should continue the negotiation to see whether a deal can be struck. So I think it is important that I keep re-emphasising that point. There was also talk that in some way it was a bizarre thing that we had loads of people lobbying us. Well, actually, for the next Item on the agenda the various lobby groups have harnessed support (Two Members: Ugh!) and they are also lobbying. Indeed, for most of the 6930 important issues that we discuss people lobby, so it is not a big surprise that people are going to lobby about this. I was a bit surprised that that was seen in some way as a strange and unusual thing. Then we get to Mr Robertshaw: ‘Could do better, see me at the end of the lesson’ I have written here, and I wonder whether I should stuff the agreement down the back of my trousers 6935 when I go to meet the headmaster in his office. There was reference to the Isle of Man Shipping Association’s proposal as if this might be news to the Department. Actually, the Isle of Man Shipping Association’s proposal: the Department of Infrastructure and DED put in £12,500 each to develop proposals for the deepwater berth and the Isle of Man Shipping Association put in £5,000, so if anything it is 6940 probably more a Government proposal than an Isle of Man Shipping Association proposal. We have looked into the deepwater berth. It is likely to cost in the region of £50 million to do. There ______1988 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

is an alternative which would deliver the vast majority of what we would want. I think 80% of the vessels that are currently serving Liverpool would be able to fit in our proposal, which would actually cost £16 million, and that would be alongside Victoria Pier, so that could be a 6945 substantial saving. The floating berth is a potential option, but we are talking about £50 million to do that and there are quite a lot of issues in relation to the gas and petroleum storage areas and how you could get traffic movements past those in a safe way. I know there are deep concerns from the emergency services in relation to trying to do something like that. Where were we … right. Mr Robertshaw, the Hon. Member for Douglas East, had suggested 6950 that I should not rush it and not keep it as a Department issue. Well, I hope that I am trying to point out and I hope I have managed to point out that all I am rushing you to do is allow me to carry on doing what I could do anyway, which I do not think is an unreasonable thing. Don’t keep it as a Department issue: well, actually, this has Council of Ministers’ support, it has the National Strategy Group support, it has the Environment and Infrastructure Committee 6955 support, we had officers from DED and Treasury working with us. So this is not a Department proposal; this a general cross-Government proposal. I do hope that gives the Hon. Member for Douglas East some reassurance. I have mentioned it before, and the Hon. Member asks why did we do it: because Government had given a commitment earlier to the Steam Packet that we would. 6960 I was delighted, to begin with, with Mr Singer’s remarks. He is very supportive of securing the route to Liverpool and agrees that we should own and control the site: £3.5 million for a 236- year lease is a great opportunity. He described the business opportunities that are there, the Liverpool Vision meetings he has been to, working more closely with Liverpool on business matters. He gently dismissed the TravelWatch concerns about the site. (Mr Singer: No!) Well, 6965 referred to and said perhaps they are not as serious as TravelWatch suggests. He also failed to mention TravelWatch’s full support for the other part of the motion. I have to say I was very pleased to receive TravelWatch’s support for us continuing discussions with the Steam Packet. Then the issue of debt is raised again. It is an important issue; there is no doubt about it. The more debt that a company has, the more likely that that debt is in some way going to have to be 6970 passed on to customers – in this case, passengers and freight users. But, as the Chief Minister described in his contribution, the User Agreement was very explicit in trying to control prices. That is what happened with the User Agreement. At the time the User Agreement was introduced … I remember it well. I was at university in Liverpool at the time. This was, blooming typical, the year the Steam Packet did not go to Liverpool. I was there at Liverpool Uni. I 6975 remember having great discussions with Dr Brian Stowell and Adrian Cain, the current Manx Language Officer. We were supposed to be learning Manx from Brian, and spent the whole time discussing the various machinations of the competition between Manx Line and the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. It was an incredibly troublesome period. It was a difficult period for the Manx economy, and the User Agreement assisted in bringing some sort of control in there. 6980 The Hon. Member for Ramsey also mentioned ‘strategically agreed ports’ and he wondered what that meant. Well, the clue is in the title – ‘agreed’: that would mean that Government would have to agree what those ports would be. We are not specifying at this stage necessarily, although obviously Liverpool is high on our list. If we develop the Liverpool site, then quite clearly that would be one of the ports that we would be specifying – it makes a load of sense. 6985 The other one is probably going to be Heysham, but again, specifying a port, if at some point that port closes we would have to be able to have the option to specify another port. So I would not read too much into that. The Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan, made a number of points. I think they are reasonable points. I believe that we have covered most of the issues that the Hon. Member 6990 mentions, but obviously we have done that in the Working Group – we clearly need to get that information out a lot further. We need to ensure that all Members are much more fully briefed on the various reasons that we decided to go in the direction we have gone.

______1989 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Turner: I have written here ‘has not learned’ – I presume that was a comment that he made about us. He was concerned about the relationship with the Steam Packet Company and 6995 then talked about writing off the debt and all the rest of it. So at this stage in the debate I am being accused of being the mouthpiece of the Steam Packet Company. Make a note, because later on I am asked by Mr Hall why did we not present some information that the Steam Packet had presented to him. (A Member: Much later.) Towards the very end, actually – another three pages’ time. Shall we skip on? Yes, so we are a mouthpiece of the company! I have always said 7000 to the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, ‘It is not for me to sell your offer. You come to me with an offer...’ Back in October, I reported back to Tynwald and I said there are three options available to us. One option is that we just carry on, wait for the User Agreement to run out, and then do a tendering exercise. Another option, which is the preferred option of many of us in here, would 7005 be that the Steam Packet gave up its current User Agreement, went out to open tender and we effectively can then confirm one way or another what the future is going to be – but obviously that would mean the Steam Packet giving up ten years of an agreement and they were loath to do that. The third option was that the Steam Packet comes to us with an offer that we cannot refuse. 7010 What I have said again and again to Isle of Man Steam Packet Company is it is for them to sell that offer; it is not for me. I am coming here today and presenting the offer, and I have made supportive comments towards the offer because I think there are an awful lot of really good things in that offer and I think the debate has focussed on the things that are not in it and has missed, quite substantially, the good points that there are in that offer. I think we should not 7015 forget those. Some of those points have been dismissed as not really worthy, but I think there are a lot of things in there that the people of the Isle of Man do want – reduced fares, improved facilities, greater reliability. These are things that people want. Mr Harmer, Hon. Member for Peel, brought us back to the Government’s proposals, because at this point in the debate we had got so far away into ‘Oh, the Minister’s forcing us to do this 7020 and forcing us to do that.’ Actually, I was not forcing you; I was asking you to give your views so we could have a more informed discussion after this Tynwald sitting. The proposal is very clear – I think, anyway. I am asking you what you think so that I can then carry on negotiation. Negotiation will then conclude. I will then come back to Tynwald and Tynwald can decide what Tynwald wants to do. That is all the commitment I am asking for at this 7025 stage. You are not sleepwalking into something. You are not being conned into giving a little bit of commitment and then, the next thing, aha, the doors are being shut behind you and you cannot go back. No. I am asking you to give your views. You have done, you have done that very well, and we can now use that in terms of developing things as we go forward. Mr Harmer – and I will say this, because there were not many people who did say this … 7030 Mr Harmer says the Steam Packet has done a great job; and actually there are some very positive things the Steam Packet has done. I have to be careful at this stage because, note, I have been accused of being a mouthpiece for the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, so I have got to be a bit careful, but there are some really positive things. Yes, there are things that go wrong, and yes, there are things that we can all criticise, but actually the Isle of Man Steam 7035 Packet continues to do an excellent job for the people of the Isle of Man, in my view. He rescued his role as DoI Harbours Member, which could have been lost by not seconding the motion in the first place. (Laughter) Mr Peake says Liverpool is a great gateway, but has concerns about tendering and also concerns about bigger boats, so this would be a good opportunity to maybe introduce the bigger 7040 boat thing. I hope that I have given you some reassurance about the tendering. There is nothing we are agreeing to today that is going to force us into one route or another. We can still decide, as Tynwald, to go down a tendering route if that is the view of the next Tynwald. In relation to bigger boats, yes, you could build this fantastic new £50 million harbour facility. You would probably then need to build a road around the gas and oil installations because of the ______1990 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

7045 issues in relation to the safety of that. Having done that, you could then fit substantially bigger boats in. Somebody – I forget who it was now, probably Mr Robertshaw – said this is the future, everyone is going for bigger boats, this is the way forward. Well, if we want to have four sailings a day, which we currently have, and those sailings operate at around about 30% to 40% capacity, getting bigger boats is not going to help the profitability of the company. In fact, it is probably 7050 going to reduce the profitability of the company, which then means that we are going to pay more, so I am not so sure that the big … Either that, or if you introduce the bigger boat you are going to significantly reduce the number of sailings. It has to be one or the other, or I suppose it is just possible that you could increase the number of passengers and vehicles using it, but I think, bearing in mind we are struggling to increase from the 30% to 40% capacity that on 7055 average the Steam Packet has – and that includes the TT period in terms of the averages; it would probably be lower if you took out the two motorsport festivals – I think that is the reason why it is not so much about the constraints of the harbour. We could always alter the harbour and get bigger boats in if we really wanted to, but if the small vessels are currently operating at less than half capacity, why would you want bigger vessels? That is an interesting question to 7060 ponder. I thank the Hon. Member for Rushen, my hon. friend Mr Skelly, for his comments. I hope he does not mind if I do not dwell on them. They were excellent comments. He must not feel upset, but the hour is late. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) Mr Thomas says we make clear, in relation to the comments that I made, ‘must’ or ‘seeks’ 7065 concession. Yes, the recommendation talks about seeking concessions, but I think it is pretty clear to me that if I do not get those concessions I do not believe that Tynwald is going to support an offer that we cannot refuse, because I think we could refuse the offer. So the reason I said ‘must’ is because I do believe that more concessions have to be delivered if we are to agree. 7070 There was then talk about return on capital employed. That has not been mentioned so far as a measure. I am not sure that that is something that we particularly want to start looking at, but again I am happy to consider any suggestions that Hon. Members wish to mention. In relation to vessels, yes, indeed, if the Isle of Man Steam Packet chooses to use its option to extend the agreement to 2026 it is required to have adequate vessels to do that. There is no 7075 requirement on Government to give any other guarantees; it is purely for the Steam Packet to ensure that it has the right vessels. Yes, there are genuine interests from lobbyists, as the Hon. Member recognised, and there are always different ways in which they can be protected in the future. It does not necessarily have to be through a new agreement with the Steam Packet. 7080 He also pointed out – and others did too – that the interests of the company who hold debt are not our concern. Absolutely. That is absolutely the case. Our concern is for passengers, for freight users and for the certainty that our Manx economy needs. We are not really that bothered about the Steam Packet’s owners and their debt problems; that is for them. They inherited the debt, or bought into the company in a certain way; that is a matter for them to 7085 deal with. Again, he talked about competition for the market, if not competition in the market, and says it would be better, in his view, if the Steam Packet won a fair, competitive tender. Maybe that is the case, but at the moment we are not in that position and indeed we will not be in that position until probably 2023 when we get closer to the end of the User Agreement. That is why 7090 we are considering the offer that the Steam Packet has made. It is usually ‘and I have two further points’, but there is always a third, I note, that sneaks on the end. Prices are down by 40% for freight but we need to have clarity on this when we return – I accept that. There was the issue in relation to whether it is based on RPI or Manx RPI, or CPI. I think these again are issues that we need to look at: what does the 40% reduction really mean; 7095 could the Cabinet Office boffins look into that? As the Cabinet Office is not my responsibility, I

______1991 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

cannot commit them, but certainly they have assisted us so far in our discussions and I would hope they would continue to do so. An interesting point was in relation to technology changing profoundly, which indeed it is, in relation to the fuels that are used to power vessels. I think that is a very interesting point and it 7100 is again something that needs to be covered in any document that comes back to Tynwald – whether that be our strategy or whether it be any potential agreement with the Steam Packet, that needs to be there. There were also issues in relation to Nuvo Bank credit, default swaps and challenges, and again I am sure that is something that we can look into. I think the Hon. Member for Douglas West asked me to reiterate that this is not a shoe-in for 7105 the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. I imagine, if they are still there, the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company will have gathered that by now! But I still think it is not at all unreasonable for us to carry on the discussions, and you never know, we may yet convince Tynwald that this is the right way forward – but then again, who knows. The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon came in again saying the select committee could do 7110 what the Hon. Member for Michael was asking, but I think it would be better if we appointed an independent person to do that work, and we could do that quite readily, I am sure. Mr Karran was horrified at the first User Agreement, but as I have said, and indeed the Chief Minister reiterated, the User Agreement did bring stability, whether the Hon. Member chooses to agree with that or not. 7115 We cannot see the accounts, the Hon. Member says, and I agree that at the moment we cannot, which is why I believe that we need greater financial transparency in any agreement. That is why we are asking for that. Freight charges were too dear for Lidl to come to the Island was one comment and another comment was that there is money haemorrhaging out of the Isle of Man. I am assuming he 7120 meant through the ownership of the company that that is haemorrhaging out of the Isle of Man. I can guarantee that if Lidl came to the Isle of Man, money would be haemorrhaging out of the Island from the Manx food sector. So again there are always issues and counter-issues that have to be considered when we look at these matters. Mr Robertshaw, the Member for Douglas East, came back in again with the issue that we 7125 were in the harness for the original motion, or we could embrace the ideas that had been expressed in the debate. I doubt it, but I hope that I have convinced the Hon. Member for Douglas East that my intention … The wording on the Order Paper is such that I will be able to embrace the ideas that are put forward. That was always my intention about coming to Tynwald for this – but I see that shake of the head! 7130 A Member: Yes, he’s shaking his head.

The Minister: I still need to see him at the end of the lesson! The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall, again would prefer, I think, the tender basis of doing 7135 this, and I can understand that. We are not committing ourselves through this vote. Did I say that before? Yes, I did. But we are not, absolutely. All we are saying is let’s have the opportunity to carry on discussions based on what we have been saying here. The Hon. Member for Onchan also mentioned the Arrow and questioned whether the Arrow would stay or go, depending on what we decide today. I am pretty confident that if we had not 7140 come with this debate at this stage the Steam Packet Company would say, ‘Well, we’ve tried to help you for three years, you haven’t come back to us in terms of any of the discussions and further negotiations we have been having; we don’t have to have the Arrow, so the Arrow can go.’ Some Members see that as threatening on the part of the Steam Packet. Others perhaps could look at this as if you were in a business and you did not have to do something but you 7145 were asked to do it by Government, and you did it for a few years and then Government did not really respond to any of your advances – you might just turn round and say, ‘Well, I don’t have to do it, I’ve done it because I was asked to, and now I am not going to do it anymore.’ Is that a ______1992 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

threat? (Interjection) Obviously, some Members think it is, but it is very difficult. I suspect the Steam Packet feel as though they are being asked that question ‘When did you stop beating your 7150 wife?’ because no matter what they do now, they are going to be accused of some of this. Again, Isle of Man Steam Packet Company has informed the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall, about the offer having been scrutinised by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Mr Henderson: We should have the vote. 7155 The Minister: I was accused of being a mouthpiece of the Steam Packet earlier, and then ‘Why was I not being a mouthpiece for the Steam Packet, explaining that particular issue?’ Maybe I should have done, and maybe we should have included that in the Report, but I had thought the Steam Packet would have made that clear. It is now clear, it has been brought out in 7160 the debate, and I think that is important. (A Member: Vote!) The Chief Minister corrected history. I thank him for the trip down Memory Lane, reminding us of the chaos of the Steam Packet/Manx Line battles. The User Agreement, for all its faults, brought stability and fare control, and that was important. So, summing up, I have rushed you into asking for guidance on how to continue our 7165 discussion with Isle of Man Steam Packet Company and I have rushed you into asking what you want us to put in a new strategy for our sea services. I could, as I said, have just gone ahead and done that anyway. I did not need Tynwald support; I asked for Tynwald support because I thought that was a good thing to do and the right thing to do, and I still think it is. At this point I remember now that the Hon. Member for Onchan asked about the situation 7170 with UNESCO and the planning situation. This is what Mayor Joe Anderson said:

Part of the problem that we face is if we go out and say to people, ‘Please come and invest in our city’, but then say, ‘You can’t put in a planning application for two years’, then our growth is going to suffer. What I am saying in my letter is that we have a track record of protecting heritage and that speaks for itself. We value the heritage status [of Liverpool] but we can’t let it stifle the growth of our city. People come here for so many reasons – our culture, yes, our buildings, and because we are open and developing.

So, effectively, the Mayor of Liverpool is saying, ‘I like the idea of UNESCO and the heritage status, but we’re cracking on anyway – UNESCO isn’t going to stop us doing the development and the work on the waterfront.’

7175 The President: You may feel, Minister, that you have covered the ground pretty well. (Interjections)

A Member: Hear, hear.

7180 Mr Henderson: Vote!

A Member: Hear, hear.

The Minister: I have three minor points. 7185 Again, summing up, it is not a shoe-in for the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. For all the reasons I have said, I just do not think a committee at this stage is the right way forward. Allow the Department to carry on, use all the debate that we have had, gather the information that is going to be required for any decision to be taken in the future, and come back presumably with our new strategy or new policy for sea services, at which point we will 7190 have a comprehensive document which covers at least all the points that have been raised here today. I think the other final point that I need to make … and again I will be accused potentially of being a mouthpiece for the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, but I think it was Mr Hall who

______1993 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

pointed out, the Hon. Member for Onchan, why would any company want to come into our 7195 marketplace – why would they want to tender for our marketplace, knowing the sort of scrutiny that they are going to be under if they get in here? There are some questions about that. Yes, there is still a lucrative market, but certainly some of the companies we have spoken to have very much made that point and said, ‘Quite frankly, why would we want the bother? It’s too much political hassle.’ There are risks to the operator. There is the economic uncertainty which 7200 is currently surrounding our shores and a greatly reduced ability to milk the Agreement in the way that perhaps people could have described it being done in the past. So there are risks on both sides. There are some good potential solutions, a range of different solutions. I do not think any of those solutions will satisfy every Member in this Hon. Court. I think all we are asking for at the moment is to support the Department’s proposals. I am more 7205 than happy to accept the amendments other than the committee, if that is possible, but I am still waiting for your steer on that. But as far as I am concerned, I am more than happy to support the amendments, provided we do not set up a committee at this stage. No objection, if at some point in the future we have got things for a committee to look at, for that committee to be established at that stage. 7210 I thank Hon. Members for their patience. This has been an interesting debate; I think it will help us in terms of getting a better solution in the long run. I beg to move.

The President: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon. 7215 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. If it assists the Minister, I am quite content to withdraw (f). I understand there is a problem on (g) as well, so if the Court is content, I am quite happy to withdraw (f) and (g) (Interjections) as the Minister has indicated he would support the rest. 7220 The President: It is entirely a matter for the Court. Does the Court agree that (f) and (g) be withdrawn from Mr Cregeen’s amendment? Agreed? Not agreed. In that case, what we will do, Hon. Members, is this. First of all – we have three amendments before us – I will take Mr Cannan’s amendment to Mr Cregeen’s. Then I will take Mr Cregeen’s 7225 amendment (a) to (e) as a separate vote. Then I will take (f) as a separate vote and (g) as a separate vote, then (h) as a separate vote to complete. I will then apply that amendment, if it passes, to the main motion. I will be putting Mrs Beecroft’s amendment before I pass Mr Cregeen’s to the main motion. Is that clear?

7230 Mr Quayle: Can I have a point of clarification, please?

The President: Mrs Beecroft’s amendment will follow when we dispose of Mr Cregeen’s amendment. If Mr Cregeen’s amendment is successful, that becomes the substantive motion and Mrs Beecroft’s amendment will be put. If Mr Cregeen’s amendment fails, we have the main 7235 motion and I will put Mrs Beecroft’s amendment. Is that clear? Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Mr President, could I just ask a point of clarification? My reading of the situation, and my apologies if I have got it right – wrong, sorry! (Laughter) – is that Mr Cannan’s 7240 amendments only work if Mr Cregeen’s amendments are approved. Should we not have Mr Cregeen’s first, followed by Mr Cannan’s?

A Member: You’re wrong.

______1994 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

7245 The President: No. The position is quite simple: Mr Cannan’s amendment will be put to Mr Cregeen’s amendment – it has to be so – and that amended amendment becomes like a substantive motion, which will then be put in parts. I hope that is clear. So, we are dealing first with Mr Cannan’s amendment to Mr Cregeen’s. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. 7250 A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 16, Noes 6

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

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 16 for and 6 against.

In the Council – Ayes 4, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Coleman Mr Anderson Mr Cretney Mr Henderson Mr Crookall Mr Turner

The President: With 4 votes in the Council and 2 against, Mr Cannan’s amendment therefore carries. I now put Mr Cregeen’s amendment, as amended by Mr Cannan, to the vote, as I indicated. 7255 First of all, parts (a) to (e) inclusive: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Part (f): those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 5, Noes 17

FOR AGAINST Mr Cannan Mrs Beecroft Mr Cregeen Mr Bell Mr Malarkey Mr Boot Mr Robertshaw Mr Gawne The Deputy Speaker Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin

______1995 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Karran Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 5 for and 17 against.

In the Council – Ayes 3, Noes 3

FOR AGAINST Mr Coleman Mr Anderson Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Turner Mr Henderson

The President: In the Council, 3 votes for and 3 against. My casting vote goes with the Keys, 7260 and therefore part (f) falls. Part (g): those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. The noes have it. Part (h): those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I now take Mrs Beecroft’s amendment to add the words as listed under her (h) and (i). Those in favour of Mrs Beecroft’s amendment, please say aye. 7265 Mr Watterson: Sorry, Mr President, isn’t it to be taken in two parts separately, because (h) would replace (h), and (i) could stand separately?

The President: Sorry, I do not see … Oh, I see, in Mrs Beecroft’s amendment. Yes, if that is the 7270 wish. (Interjection by Mr Watterson) Yes, indeed. In that case, Mrs Beecroft’s amendment, part (h): those in favour, say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 3 , Noes 19

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

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 3 votes for and 19 against. ______1996 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

In the Council – Ayes 0, Noes 6

FOR AGAINST None Mr Anderson Mr Coleman Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, no votes for and 6 against. That part (h) therefore fails to carry. I put part (i): those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. 7275 A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 16, Noes 6

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

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, the vote in the Keys is 16 for and 6 against.

In the Council – Ayes 4, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Coleman Mr Anderson Mr Cretney Mr Henderson Mr Crookall Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 4 votes for and 2 against. Part (i) therefore carries. I now put Mr Cregeen’s substantive amendment, as amended by Mr Cannan and Mrs Beecroft, to the Court. This is the amendment to the main motion at Item 8. Those in favour 7280 of the amendment, please say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 20, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Karran Mr Bell Mr Ronan Mr Boot

______1997 T133 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 19th JULY 2016

Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Gawne Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Joughin Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Deputy Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

The Deputy Speaker: Mr President, the voting in the Keys is 20 for and 2 against.

In the Council – Ayes 6, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 6 for and none against. I put the motion as amended – 7285 Several Members: That was the motion.

The President: – the substantive motion, as amended, to the Court. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. 7290 Mr Watterson: Sorry. Pardon me, Mr President. We have gone through –

The President: We are in the middle of a vote, I am sorry, Hon. Member. Those against, say aye. (Laughter) Those against, say no. (Laughter) The ayes have it. 7295 (Laughter) The ayes have it. And we can look up in Hansard what we have just voted on, if you are unclear!

Announcement of Royal Assent

The President: Now, Hon. Members, just before we close, I can announce that Royal Assent has been given to the Highways (Amendment) Act 2016 and the National Health and Care Service Act 2016. 7300 With that, I adjourn this Hon. Court until tomorrow morning at 10.30. Thank you, Hon. Members.

The Court adjourned at 9.14 p.m.

______1998 T133