Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man.
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT
DOUGLAS, Wednesday 22nd June, 1988 at 10.30 a.m.
Present: The Lieutenant-Governor (His Excellency Major General Laurence New, C.B., C.B.E.). In the Council: The President of the Council (the Hon. R.J.G. Anderson), the Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Arthur Henry Attwell), the Attorney- General (Mr. T.W. Cain), Messrs. B. Barton, and E.C. Irving, C.B.E., lion. E.G. Lowey, His Honour A.C. Luft, C.B.E. Messrs. W.K. Quirk and J.N. Radcliffe, with Mr. T.A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council.
In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.)(Garff); Hon. A.R. Bell and Brig. N.A. Butler, C.B.E. (Ramsey); Mr. R.E. Quine (Ayre); Hon. J.D.Q. Cannan (Michael); Mrs. H. Hannan (Peel); Mr. W.A. Gilbey (Glenfaba); Messrs. P. Karran, R.C. Leventhorpe and L.R. Cretney (Onchan); Hon. B. May and Mrs. J. Delaney (Douglas North); Messrs. A.C. Duggan and D.C. Cretney (Douglas South); Hon. D.F.K. Delaney and Mr. P.W. Kermode (Douglas East); Messrs. J.C. Cain and Hon. G.V.H. Kneale (Douglas West); Hon. J.A. Brown (Castletown); Hon. M.R. Walker, Dr. J.R. Orme and Mr. J. Corrin (Rushen); with Prof. T. St.J. N. Bates, Clerk of Tynwald.
The Lord Bishop took the prayers.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Governor: Hon. members, Mr. Gelling and Mr. Callin have asked for leave of absence today to attend a Conference of the Peripheral Maritime Regions of the E.E.C. and I have granted that permission.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL — APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE — MOTION APPROVED
The Governor: We revert now to the Agenda Paper and to item 5, Chief Executive for Executive Council. I call on Mr. Leventhorpe to move.
Apologies for Absence Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved T1588 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
Mr. Leventhorpe: Your Excellency, I beg to move —
That Tynwald is of the opinion that the Isle of Man would benefit from the appointment of a Chief Executive to aid Executive Council.
Your Excellency, the last ten years in the Isle of Man have seen probably a greater constitutional and structural change to the Island than any other period in the Island's history since the Viking invasions. I do not intend to go back to that period and take us through the history since, but if we look at the last ten years we have seen in Government a change from 26 different boards, all competing for funds - on a really 'shout loudest, get most' basis with a Board of Finance that had to try and hold the floor on this to try and keep some sort of balance; we have seen your role, Your Excellency, change from that of an executive position to one more of advisory liaison for chairing this hon. Court and, if I may say so, to be of an ornamental nature. There has also been a profound change in the industrial base of the Island or the business base of the Island from agriculture, fisheries and tourism to a very much greater emphasis on the financial sector and on manufacturing, all of which bring us into the international field and away from the simple domestic considerations of the original basis of our industry here. So we are in a position where we cannot just say 'Stop the world, I want to get off;' we are now committed to being a part of a very much wider activity and a wider circle than we have been, and to this end it has been decided that we should, in Government, change to the ministerial system where we have nine ministers in charge of departments under a Chief Minister. Now only yesterday, appropriately from the hon. Minister for Industry, he referred to the Island as 'The Isle of Man Limited' and it is a very apt description because we are by these standards a sizeable organisation. If this was a public company we would be classed as a medium to large; we would not be as large as I.C.I. or B.A.T. or B.P., but with a Gross National Product of around £250 million, in fact in excess of that figure according to expectations, which can be called the Island's annual profit, that is a sizeable concern and if you even just look at Government we deal with expenditure running to £177 million in gross figures and this year are expecting to spend £37 million on capital items, and so our Isle of Man Limited has its board of directors in the form of Executive Council, and each of those directors has under him some sector of the Island's economy; whether it is tourism or home affairs or the mundane affairs of drainage and roads, they are all under a minister which cover all the aspects of life on the Island, so that everything comes under the supervision of one or more ministries — one or more, and I think that is the first justification for appointing somebody on the lines that I am proposing, because when we have overlapping and duplication there has on occasion been, to my knowledge, a lack of cohesion, a lack of anyone in charge. We had the Public Accounts Committee report on the emergency services, and there it was quite clear that nobody had actually been put in overall command. I have served on another select committee where exactly the same thing was found to be the case, so I believe that one of the functions of an officer of this nature will be to co-ordinate affairs of the different departments and make sure that somebody is in overall charge. Another criticism that is often levelled at this hon. Court, the Government of
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1589
this Island, is that we react to events rather than anticipating them and trying to deal with the problems before they even arise, so again I believe that we need somebody outside the day-to-day routine of departments and ministerial appointments who can stand back and look at this aspect of things, to anticipate the requirements and the problems that are going to arise, and he has got to look far ahead. It was said by a retired British Prime Minister that a week in politics is a long time, (A Member: It sure is.) that a week in the affairs of a nation are but a blink of an eyelid. Again, as I have said, we are moving to an area or a position where we are aiming to have greater independence and self-reliance, and as a result there are a vast number of affairs and business to be discussed mainly with the U.K. but also with the E.E.C. I will name just a few of them: there is defence, there is the Common Purse and the V.A.T. position, and only yesterday rulings in the European Court went at least partly against Britain and will therefore be binding on us and could have damaging effects on our economy. We need to have somebody to look to that. We have the B.B.C. licence and the whole radio and T.V. operations. We have again — it was raised in this hon. Court yesterday — the 12-mile or median line and our fishing, the Continental Shelf and oil and mineral rights, Sellafield and problems of radiation, problems of pollution, higher education, and probably pre-eminent even, 1992 - the harmonisation of indirect taxation rates and the real single European community. I believe that we need somebody very experienced, a very high level individual who will be able to negotiate; he will need to have considerable business experience, he will need to have worked with the mandarins of Whitehall and preferably know them by their first names and he will have to have a powerful personality. It could be said that we could find somebody ourselves. I do not doubt that in the long run we will, but at the moment I do not believe that that person exists on the Island, partly from the scale of activity that we have been engaged in, partly because, to date, our Civil Service, who are a first-class body, have not had the benefit of staff college training or an outside experience. So, Your Excellency, I believe that what we need at the moment, at this stage in our development, is a top class administrator and negotiator to assist in all of the complex affairs which Executive Council is facing and this Government is facing in order to ensure we take our rightful place, because we are in a very small minority; we are one to a thousand in the U.K., and we are one to five thousand in the European Common Market. Unless we make our voice very clear and loud we will be submerged. Your Excellency, I beg to move.
Brig. Butler: Your Excellency I will second the resolution put down by the hon. member for Onchan. I hope I am not in deep water with the Standing Orders again because I do not actually fully agree with the resolution (Laughter), but I think he has put his finger on a deficiency in our Government, something we need to take care of in some way or other and I certainly think it is worth a little time this morning airing the problem. Why I am not fully in agreement with it is really probably a question of semantics, and that is the title 'Chief Executive'; I think it would be extremely wrong in our Government to start talking about a chief executive, because quite clearly the chief executive of the Isle of Man Government is the Chief Minister and the thing is not going to work if he is not seen to be that, so any name suggests someone else is actually running the Government would be
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved T1590 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 wrong, and therefore I am totally and utterly opposed to the name 'Chief Executive'. I think the reason the hon. member probably picked that name is twofold: one is that in business and indeed in county and borough government in the U.K. you do use this name Chief Executive to describe the sort of person he was talking about, but the circumstances here are very different. I think probably the second reason is much the same problem that I have — it is difficult to think of a name for this responsible person, whether he is an assistant or an adviser or what, and I think that is something that would need a lot of thought and certainly does not need to be decided today. 4:-
Mr. Kermode: As long as he can walk on water.
Brig. Butler: Well, he needs to be able to walk on water to do the sort of jobs that he needs to be able to do. But why do we need someone? Well there are a lot of reasons. There is a tremendous load on the Chief Minister as a person. There are a lot of ways of helping to reduce this, but there are some areas in which anything we do within our present machinery, within our present manpower, which cannot be helped, and the hon. member from Onchan has pointed his finger at a lot of those. Government now is so complex, there are so many issues to be resolved, technical issues, technical in many ways — technical from an engineering point of view, technical from a law point of view, technical from a financial point of view — and in an Island of 75,000 people you just are not going to have available, or you cannot be certain of having available, the sort of expertise you need and, even if you do, you have to have someone to co-ordinate, filter, organise that advice so that the real Chief Executor, the Chief Minister, can handle it. He really should not be having to pass through masses of papers which are not already properly sorted; he needs someone to do that for him and present him with a clear idea of the options that are involved. You might say, 'Well, he has already got someone, he has got Mr. Fred Kissack' and I have a very high opinion of Fred Kissack, but he is a civil servant and he has a specific job to do, and that is to interface Government into the machinery, the Civil Service that helps us run all aspects of Government; his job will change considerably if the Pool Report, as I have read it and understand it, is adopted, but he cannot give all of the support that I am talking about. He can give some of it but he is only one man, he is a very able man and he shows a remarkable grasp of many affairs well outside his experience and training. But you have to accept that civil servants do come through a certain form of experience and training, and when they reach the top level they are prepared for certain sort of work and, while certainly one would expect them to be able to take wide views and understand what goes on in the outside world, you cannot expect them to be able to cope with many of the sort of problems that I am describing. Now I would not like here and now, because it will be a very delicate matter, to say how the division of labour, if you had an extra man, and what exactly the powers would be of the two separate posts, an adviser from outside and a chief civil servant from inside; someone would have to carefully define it. But I am saying that I see so many pitfalls in our future Government and the way we need to run it and the decisions we need to make and the speed with which things are going to move in an international situation; I see a need to go out and hire someone with
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1591 multi-discipline experience, with experience well outside the Isle of Man, with obviously a pretty outstanding track record — the particular field is probably not important, it is the width of the experience that would be important — and to give him a role which will help the Chief Minister by enabling him not to take decisions on behalf of the Chief Minister but to prepare the information in certain fields which he would have the remit for and to make the variety of options that much clearer and therefore the time spent in the decision-making process that much shorter. Yes, I will admit that what I am talking about is vague. The problem is not vague. Once again, the hon. member for Onchan has already underlined the number of instances where we are suffering now through not having some sort of person of this sort, but the nature of the solution is vague — I accept that wholeheartedly — but I would like to think that the Chief Minister could feel that if he sees a need for something on these lines, he can come and ask this hon. Court for their agreement and receive it, and I therefore, Your Excellency, do second the motion within the limits that I have described and I would like to see us consider, at least, the hiring of someone to reduce the load in this particular area.
Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, I personally think this is empire building and I think it is totally unnecessary. I do not agree with Brigadier Butler, but the Brigadier has touched on one matter — Fred Kissack. I worked with Fred Kissack for five years with the Chief Minister on the Local Government Board — an excellent officer. But, going back over the years, Your Excellency, we had Mrs McCabe, a part-time secretary she was at the time, working with Percy Radcliffe and also Dr. Mann — they did not have much back-up at all. Since then they have got a full-time secretary and Fred Kissack. I think it is totally unnecessary, Your Excellency, to have this officer. I do not know how other members feel. I spoke to the Chief Minister quickly yesterday and he did not seem to know much about it. Does he really want this person, I am asking, Your Excellency? Because I think it is definitely totally unnecessary, sir.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, I do not know about empire building but I know there are certain empires that are crumbling at a time when the Poole Report comes into operation. Other executive officers in our other departments cannot make decisions because they do not know which way our minister is going to go. This matter of executive management should have been taken into consideration when Government and the ministerial system was first brought in. It should have been thought out long before we ever got to this stage and it never was, because the whole system is inadequate. You have got a Civil Service now that is at such a low ebb, they are all going into the private sector; they are completely demoralised and I just wonder how long the Chief Minister is going to sit back and let it go on until some of our ministers come forward with a policy for their department which is re-organisation right down the line so that our staff can have a bit more confidence and make a decision and not wait for us to make the management decision which is not ours; we are policy-makers. So I will support this because it is a step in the right direction, but it should be spread right down throughout Government and not just Executive Council, because there are other elected members and other people in this Government who also want a say.
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved T1592 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I did not know whether or not I could support the resolution tabled by Mr. Leventhorpe, obviously, until he had made his opening remarks. Certainly I would agree entirely with Brigadier Butler that 'Chief Executive' appears to me to be the wrong term. Executive responsibility does not lie in the main with Executive Council; it lies with the nine departments of Government, and I would suggest that that is where executive responsiblity should remain and I think there is a danger, if we go along the line that Mr. Leventhorpe is suggesting, that Executive Council in fact takes on the executive functions of the departments and I do not believe that should be the role for Executive Council in the future and I suppose, as far as that goes, we have got a wrong title, 'Executive Council', with very few executive functions. We should be looking, I would suggest, for a new term, a new name, and I do not think that Cabinet is a right one either, because if we think about a Cabinet I think most of us automatically refer to the United Kingdom situation of a Cabinet where in fact the Cabinet is the Government and knows it has a majority and so on. I think we are in a different ball game and have to recognise that. The functions of Executive Council in the past have been mainly advisory - advisory to His Excellency and, I suppose in the future, there will remain a strong advisory role for Executive Council, but increasingly it is becoming the co-ordinating body, it is becoming the body where policy in broad terms should be formed and then passed down to the executive departments of Government for further refinement and to carry out, so I do not see Chief Executive as being the right title but I do not think we should, at this stage, get hung up on a title; there are many. As far as the office as it is established at the moment is concerned, Your Excellency, I think everybody would accept that it has been an intermediate measure. Certainly Mr. Kissack has been mentioned and I would not like him — and I know he will not — to take any sort of personal feelings out of what may be said during this debate today. I certainly have got the strongest support for him and I know that goes for everybody else that has worked with him. Nevertheless, I would suggest here that Mr. Kissack himself is the first to admit that he has not got the skills that this new role will demand. It is quite possible that he can acquire those skills over a period of time and it is quite possible that there are other people within the Civil Service who could acquire those skills as well. I believe sincerely that this post should be within the Civil Service ultimately. I think it is a position which the keen young men who decide to make Government service their career should be able to aspire to. I think what I am saying really is I believe in a unified Civil Service where there is and are good job prospects for people who want to come into Government service. I said the establishment of my office and that of Executive Council has in fact been an intermediate, as it has, I know — and I take the point made by the hon. member for Douglas East — as it has been with a number of the Departments of Government and we have been waiting for the Poole Report and the Civil Service Commission have in fact received that report now and it has been passed down to the departments for discussion. I think I should say right now that at this stage of the game the Poole Report should still remain a confidential document, and that is rather difficult in a public debating forum, but there is a fair amount, I think, of negotiation and talking and agreement and so on to be reached on that report before it is or should become publicly debated. It may be already but that certainly is not something that has happened either because of the Civil Service or because
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1593 of Executive Government. So we have an intermediate situation at the moment which is certainly a system, and I do not believe I could have carried on for the 18 months I have done without the situation that has been arranged, and I would thank everybody who has been involved in that, but certainly it is not a situation that is going to help Executive Council and its functions develop over the foreseeable future as it needs to develop. The way forward on that one, I hope, has been agreed between the Civil Service Commission, the Treasury and certainly myself and, I think, supported by Executive Council, and that is that we should have a person with different skills to those that are available within the Civil Service and the Isle of Man at the moment, but that person should be brought in on a period of secondment, perhaps for three years, and during that time we have to, I think, develop the skills within our own people, within our own Civil Service to take over from this seconded person when the three years is up and, Your Excellency, that is the way forward as I see it, as Executive Council has supported and the Civil Service Commission have agreed and the Poole Report recommends. I think it is important that the Chief Secretary of the Chief Minister's office, of Executive Council, is within the Civil Service and I think there is a great degree of difference between the skills that are required in the post that we are looking for and the chief executive responsibilities of a large business, and I think it is wrong all the time to compare Government with business. There is a different end product and I think we have to recognise that. We can judge the chief executive of a business by the success of that business, and the success of that business in fact boils down to its profits at the end of the day and the service it gives to its customers. Government is so different from that. There are a completely different mix of motives when we talk about Government. Obviously we have to make the best possible use of our resources, which in fact are the people's resources but there is also a public service element; a very important public service element; there is the element of environmental aspects, there is all the rest of it. A balance has got to be achieved between profit — or perhaps that is not the favourite word within Government circles — minimising loss and the public service that has to be given by a Government to its people, and that balance has got to emerge from the politicians, from public debate, consensus and resolution, but that balance, I believe, has got to be achieved by the politicians, not by the chief executive, and that is why I think the terminology is wrong. I think, hon. members, we know the way forward and I hope Mr. Gilbey will make a contribution of some detail from the Civil Service side of it, but I do believe we have found the way forward and I would hope that Mr. Leventhorpe can give us his support.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I see this resolution as a logical development in the ministerial government pattern. I would say it reflects the wish of everyone who would wish to see ministerial government succeed in the Isle of Man, and Heaven help us all if it does not succeed! Now one may quibble as to whether or not 'Chief Executive Officer' is the right term, but the hon. member who moved the resolution was quite clear in his requirement and, possibly, I would interpret it as a Cabinet Secretary. But, Your Excellency, there is definitely a need for personnel of high calibre to service the Cabinet in the future, and I think we have
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved T1594 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
to acknowledge that that Cabinet, in my view, cannot succeed unless it is serviced by a person who has the knowledge and ability to interpret the needs of Government over a very wide spectrum, and we are talking of Europe and in broader today. Now, Your Excellency, I would make the point that has been made by the hon. member, Mr. Duggan: this does not necessarily mean empire building, because there must be an acknowledgment that there should be an eradication of some of those elements of administration which are outdated. The Government Secretary line is no longer tenable, Government Office no longer worthy of maintaining; the roles there must be absorbed into other roles. We are in to a new ball game today and, if we acknowledge that, this is not going to be empire building; in fact, it is going to be building constructively for the future. Now, we have, Your Excellency, gone into the ministerial pattern in the hope and belief that it was going to effect for the Isle of Man beneficial change. I would doubt up to this moment whether that beneficial change has been achieved. The transfer of departments to ministries, the effectiveness of ministries, the structure within the ministries all leave questions which have yet to be answered, and I do not think that Executive Council in itself has had time to answer those questions. In other words, they need somebody assisting them of a calibre who can help resolve the overall need of the Island as we go forward into the future, Your Excellency. Now there is one point I would make here too. I would say that as we strengthen Executive Council, there is a need for Executive Council also to recognise what might be described as an embryo Opposition. Government needs opposition if it is going to be effective and there must be facilities for Opposition to function, and Executive, I think, must recognise in making this appointment that it can no longer say to this House, 'Right, we will give you one-third of a report and retain two-thirds of it when we are seeking your support on issues'. There must be more information available to those members who are not directly involved in Government and, whether you like to term them Opposition or not, that is a matter for you to determine but inevitably, when it comes to the vote, that is opposition. So, Your Excellency, I am seeking a broad approach to this. I do not accept the criticism of the term Chief Executive because, as I say, that is a matter, really, of interpretation. We all know what the hon. member is seeking and I think we should support the resolution today because in this way we will be helping the ministerial system to advance along the road which can only be beneficial to the Isle of Man.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I welcome this debate. As the Chief Minister has said, the Poole Report is private to members of this hon. Court and to the Civil Service. However, I think it would not be improper to just quote from two parts which are very general but are very specific to the point we are discussing. They are under Section 6(3); 'The recommendation that the present functions of Government Office and those of the Chief Minister's office be combined under a new post which should undertake the present functions of the head of the Civil Service, the Government Secretary and the chief adviser to the Chief Minister, and it is interesting that as it is also suggested further on, that as principal advisor to the Chief Minister the post would oversee the co-ordination and development of Government policy and provide policy advice to the Chief Minister', which is really just what the hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Leventhorpe, has been suggesting. Again, as the Chief Minister has stated it is envisaged and planned that the initial
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1595
holder of this very, very important post should be seconded either from the U.K. or the Ulster Civil Service for three or four years, and thus I think he would provide many of the attributes which the hon. member for Onchan is seeking. First of all he would certainly have very wide experience at a very high level; secondly, he would certainly be likely to know many of the mandarins in Whitehall. He might also, possibly, have business experience of some kind, because it is now common for people of the calibre of whom we would be seeking to either have been seconded to businesses for a short period or, at the very least, to have attended staff colleges and training colleges where they mix on a practical level with people in business. The hon. member for Onchan also mentioned that we would need help in the selection of such a person and with that I would entirely agree as to the Civil Service Commission, and we are fortunate that a very, very senior member of the Staff Inspection and the Valuation Department of the U.K. Treasury, who is in fact Mr. Roger Poole's superior and who arranged for Mr. Poole to undertake the report, has offered to help us in the selection. Not only that, but he feels that because of the unique opportunity of the post and the opportunities you would give to anyone holding it on secondment, we should get a very good choice of able candidates coming forward. Concerning the points made by the hon. and gallant member for Ramsey, Brigadier Butler, I would entirely agree that the post should not be called a Chief Executive. After all, chief executives make me think of the people who run county councils, and our whole move to a ministerial system has been to move away from a local authority system to that of a Government. I agree that a possible name is Chief Secretary or otherwise something like Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Minister. I would like to assure the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr. Kermode, that the Officers' Association's Executive welcome and generally agree with the main policy proposals in the Poole Report, so they are welcomed by our own Civil Service. I was very glad that the Chief Minister confirmed that ultimately the aim must be for this post to be held by a member of the Manx Civil Service but, as he has rightly said, we have no one with sufficient training or experience to hold it at the present time. The very firm aim would be during the period of secondment of the person to whom I have been referring, a Manx civil servant would be selected and carefully trained to succeed him just in the same way that we now have a seconded training officer who is going to be replaced by a member of the Manx Civil Service. Regarding Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that certainly he is right that the proposal of a Chief Secretary is not empire building; far from it. As I see it, he would have as one of his main responsibilities to co-ordinate the work of other civil servants at a high level and make sure they were not building up individual empires but were acting as one united whole. I was, on a slightly different note, myself rather concerned about the suggestion ) of Oppositions because I have seen Oppositions across the water where people just oppose everything that the Government or the party in power does just because it is the other side proposing it, and I do pray we will never get to that state when some people just sit here and say, 'Oh well, it is proposed by the other side or the people in Executive Council so I have got to oppose it'. I think that would be a very, very sad day indeed.
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved T1596 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
Mr. Kermode: Hear, hear.
The Governor: I call on the mover to reply..
Mr. Leventhorpe: Your Excellency, I think there is in fact a very broad measure of agreement for the resolution. It has certainly, it can now be said, appeared in the Poole Report, the type of recommendation, but my own feeling was that at this stage we needed to go further. I believe that the post at the moment should be outside the Civil Service. I think it should be, I agree, a three-year term, but I believe that we need to get a really very highly qualified, very experienced individual in, probably at a substantial salary outside Civil Service levels while we train up — and with this I am in total agreement — while we train up our own people on this Island for the responsibilities and the rigours of the job involved. Turning to the individual contributions, I accept Chief Executive may not be the right name but it is descriptive of the office; if it was a company you would call him the Managing Director. Chief Executive certainly is not the name that I feel he should be known by, but that is, as somebody said, semantics. I do not believe that this is empire building; other members have agreed on that. I think that it is a means of preventing empire building. I believe it is a method by which the whole system of Government can be brought under scrutiny. The Chief Minister himself — I think in general we were, as I say, in agreement, but I do not entirely accept his contention that business and Government are so different. A responsible business is not solely concerned with maximisation of profit; it is concerned with the environment, with its employees, with a whole range of outside considerations, and it will on occasion, on many occasions, postpone the maximisation of profit to achieve better growth, better conditions generally, and I think that this is the type of approach that we should be taking. If you talk about profit anyhow, surely the minimisation of Government expenditure comes under the same heading; that is the equivalent of profit-making. If we can contain Government expenditure, if we can prevent some of the white elephants that have occurred and some of the disaster areas for which our Government has been responsible in the past — I will not go into details on them — if that can be done it will surely be beneficial. I was glad to hear Mr. Speaker agree that this is a logical development and vital to the ministerial system, because at the moment I cannot feel that we have moved very far away from the old board system. We have not yet got the ministerial system put together, and I believe again we need somebody with business experience who can weld the team of ministers. We all wish them well, we all wish this system of ministerial government to work, but at the moment I think we are a very long way from it happening. Mr. Gilbey, thank you. You again — I think we are not far apart. I accept that the Manx Civil Service should be the people to man this post in the long run, but I am not entirely happy again that it should be a civil servant that we should have on secondment from either the U.K. or Ulster. I wonder where their loyalties will lie when they have to go back into service in the U.K. or of course, in Ulster. So I would like to get somebody independent, and to that end I would suggest that perhaps a firm of headhunters could be consulted on this, and I think, as I say, the salary would be outside Civil Service levels. But I quote from an ex retired captain
Executive Council — Appointment of Chief Executive — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1597 of industry now resident on this Island, who said to me on one occasion, 'You cannot pay a good man to much,' i.e. if you pay somebody a lot of money he is going to make that for you ten times over. Your Excellency, I was delighted to hear that in fact the Poole Report and my own informations was so closely allied. I can claim that I had come up with this idea before I had seen the Poole Report, but I believe that we need to strengthen that, and I believe that that would be beneficial to the Island and beneficial to our system of Government.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing at item 5 on the main Agenda Paper. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys —
For: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Quine, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Corrin, Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. D. C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Karran, Leventhorpe, R. L. Cretney and the Speaker — 21
Against: Mr. Duggan — 1
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, sir, with 21 votes being cast in favour and one vote against.
In the Council —
For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Radcliffe, Quirk, Barton, Irving, Luft and the President of the Council — 8
Against: Nil
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council eight votes cast in favour, none against. The resolution therefore carries.
SPORTS REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT — DEBATE COMMENCED
The Governor: Item 6, Report of the Sports Review Committee. I call on the Minister for Tourism and Transport to move.
Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald —
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced T1598 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
(1) receives the report of the Sports Review Committee appointed by the Department of Tourism and Transport and the Sports Council, pursuant to a resolution of Tynwald to consider all aspects of the provision of sports facilities in the Isle of Man;
(2) approves of the Department of Tourism and Transport incurring preliminary expenditure not exceeding £250,000 with a view to replacing the Aquadrome with an indoor water centre on the Villa Marina site;
(3) requests that the Department of Tourism and Transport have regard to the remaining recommendations in the report in formulating its future programme of capital expenditure and its proposals for the creation of a management structure for sport in the Island.
Your Excellency, after having experienced life in the lion's den last night, I arrived with some trepidation this morning to present this report. (Laughter and interruptions) Your Excellency, at the March 1987 sitting of Tynwald it was determined that the Department of Tourism, in conjunction with the Sports Council, should consider all aspects of the provision of sports facilities, consult interested parties and report back to Tynwald indicating priorities. In order to fulfil this request the department and the Sports Council appointed a committee, the Sports Review Committee, and I have much pleasure in placing this report of that committee before Tynwald today. At the very outset of its deliberations the review committee recognised that it would be extremely difficult to produce a series of priorities which would be viewed as an unbiased assessment, not influenced by the individual sporting preferences or original abodes of the members, and furthermore, even if an unbiased report were produced, there would still be a perceived bias as far as those who doubted its recommendations were concerned. The committee decided therefore to seek a professional assessment as the Islands sporting and leisure needs, an assessment from persons of such stature in the sporting world that their findings would be accepted as undeniably authoritative. The choice of a consultant to produce a professional assessment was easy. It had, quite simply, to be the best that we could find, and that, without doubt, in a British and even a European context, was the Pickering Torkildsen Partnership. Pickering Torkildsen Partnership comprises Ron Pickering O.B.E. and Dr. George Torkildsen. Ron Pickering, I am sure, is very well known to most people, especially in his role as a television commentator and journalist. Dr. George Torkildsen, who directed the project, was a Fulbright scholar and Churchill Fellow and has been a leading leisure, planning and management consultant over very many years in the United Kingdom and internationally. Over 25 years in the field have given Pickering Torkildsen Partnership a unique understanding and knowledge of leisure and recreation planning and management. Our consultants set about producing a report to the committee in September of last year. The first phase of their research was to evaluate the sporting and leisure facilities on the Island and to talk to people involved in the Island's sport to get a real feel for the community and its sporting needs. Extensive consultation took place with Government departments and local authorities. The extent of these consultations can be seen in the full report which is deposited in the library and
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1599 in the Members' Room, and if any members have had the chance to see it, it is a very extensive document which shows quite clearly the extent of the consultation which has taken place, in fact, to produce this report. The consultants then set about identifying deficiencies in the sporting and leisure infrastructure of the Island and producing a comprehensive report. This report, the executive summary of which has been circulated to all members, provides the Island with a blueprint for the development of sport and leisure into the 21st century, and by now I hope hon. members will have had chance to read that report and fully absorb it. Based on this authorative and truly independent report, the Sports Review Committee is now placing before Tynwald its final recommendations. In terms of the provision of new facilities, we have decided that the major priorities should be, firstly, to replace the Aquadrome with an indoor water centre on the Villa Marina site, to include a separate six-lane 25 metre pool and separate fun water areas and features. This proposal was already under consideration by the Department of Tourism before this report, and it is gratifying that independent experts have identified this project as the top priority. I should also remind hon. members it was also identified as a top priority in the recent report which has been carried out for us by the University of Surrey. A new state-of-the-art Aqua Centre will be a tremendous amenity, not only for the local community but also for our visitors to the Island. After comprehensive investigation the Villa Marina Gardens have been identified as the optimum site. The department has commissioned a feasibility study.on this proposal from Faulkner Brown's, a leading firm of specialist architects, and from the preliminary design work and in particular the design model which is displayed in the Members' Room, it is clear that the proposed Aqua Centre will not in any way detract from the natural beauty of the Villa Marina Gardens but will, in fact, both enhance the attractiveness and widen the appeal of the gardens — and I do hope hon. members have had a chance to have a look at this model as I think it will give you a clear idea of the way in which we are thinking. The now declining Villa Marina will once again be the majestic focal point for leisure, recreation and entertainment in the Island. It is the prime promenade site accessible to both the town centre and to the major hotels, and has the added advantage of substantial adjacent car parking in the Chester Street site. Our second recommendation, after a considerable amount of thought and consultation, is the necessity to create a national indoor and outdoor sports centre at Nobles Park, comprising an indoor centre to replace Summerland, a 400-metre synthetic running track, a separate floodlit synthetic pitch and some associated spectator provision. The case for a national sports stadium has been made before, although the alignment of indoor and outdoor facilities on a single site is a new concept. Whenever the question of a national sports stadium has been raised in the past, it has been bedevilled by arguments about siting, and on this occasion we have before us an independent professional evaluation of all the possible sites, an evaluation unfettered by preconceived views or local bias, and I really must underline that point — there has been no pressure whatsoever brought to bear on the consultants; the recommendations which have come forward from them has been completely their own evaluation based on their own experience. It is the view of the professionals that the optimum site is Noble's Park, a site with prominence and accessibility to make it a truly national centre, and a site already associated
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced T1600 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 • with the T. T. Grandstand, which is internationally recognised in sporting circles. A national sports centre for the Island will require maximum usage if it is to provide value for money, and that means not used solely in the evenings or at weekends but also during the day. The Noble's Park site is ideally suited for use by students from the College of Futher Education, by pupils from the High School at St. Ninian's and by those residents who attend the special school in Glencrutchery Road and the nearby handicapped centres, all within easy distance of the site. Indeed, there , is already, I believe, a proposal somewhere in the pipeline for the College of Further / Education to have its own sports hall in the not-too-distant future. A national sports centre at Noble's Park will make this unnecessary. Hon. members, we must learn from our mistakes. The indoor sports facilities at Summerland have been plagued by a dearth of usage during the day time periods' directly attributable to the miscalculated location of the centre and a site which is inaccessible to those establishments which would benefit most from its use. The Noble's Park site has all of these advantages. One of the main problems we have suffered from on the Isle of Man for a great many years is our unremitting willingness to settle for second best. What we are proposing this morning is the best facilities on the best site. I know, hon. members, that we have all heard the arguments in recent days from the protagonists of the Bowl, King George V Park or St. John's. Clearly, if we are to meet the sporting aspirations of the Island and to get close to value for money, the national sports centre must be situated close to the centre of population, and that means, without question, it must be sited in the Douglas or Onchan area. I can assure hon. members now that the original proposal which was put to us to site a national stadium at St. John's has been very carefully and very thoroughly investigated. The consultants have met with the local commissioners, with the sporting organisations, with as many people as possible to test the viability of this site, and they have come down quite clearly and unequivocably against the use of St. John's as the sports arena. St. John's certainly has strong emotive appeal and it is in Government ownership but it has very little else to commend it. The absence of a concentration of population around the site would inevitably lead to low usage levels during the daytime period and it would very rapidly become a white elephant. The Bowl itself does not have the same number of educational and other potential daytime users. Even though it is in Douglas, experience at Summerland shows that the key factor is being within walking distance. There is also a question of alignment of the running track. The optimum alignment could only be attained by building over the present course of the River Dhoo. Diverting the river would not be cheap and, furthermore, the site is close to the rivers and I am quite sure members can remember the potential flooding problems that have existed down there for quite some time. The other area which concerns us is the matter of security, and we believe that security of the more remote Bowl and King George V site would be considerably less than that of Noble's Park, which has a much higher profile and has the advantage of being adjacent to the police headquarters. As far as the Bowl is concerned it is a low profile site. A true national sports centre deserves a site of the highest profile for use by local and visiting sportsmen to encourage and promote the development of sport, sport recreation and leisure to improve the health and vitality of the Manx people. The protagonists of the Bowl have claimed that the site is just as central as Noble's Park, and certainly in Douglas
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1601
terms that may be true, but we have to look on this as being a national centre. The claim that the Bowl is central neglects the fact that Onchan is very close to the Noble's Park centre and Onchan represents some 30 per cent. of the population of the eastern conurbation. Your Excellency, I would just add at this point that we are recommending strongly that Noble's Park be the preferred site for the national sports centre, but I would t just remind hon. members that if the resolution today is agreed, the resolution that we are putting forward to this hon. Court is merely the first stage of its development. It is not a final and irrevocable decision as to the location of the site. If in fact t the resolution is approved today, the next step will be to enter into negotiations and discussions with Douglas Corporation as to the availability and suitability of Noble's Park. If in fact, for whatever reason, that could not be made available, we will be looking at the second option, which will be King George V Park, so I would like to assure hon. members at this stage, we are not closing the doors, in fact, to the alternative of the King George V, but we do believe that Noble's Park is the best site that we could choose. Our third major recommendation, Your Excellency, is that we discontinue the Summerland complex as a long-term element in the Island's sporting infrastructure, and to seek substantial capital gain from the disposal of that building. This is a far-reaching and perhaps controversial recommendation to abandon Summerland and the Aquadrome complex, which was once a flagship of Manx leisure. Although in its original concept it was head of its time, much of the original flair was lost in the understandable quest for safety when it was rebuilt. Even worse, if Summerland is to be retained in the long term there will need to be a major expenditure, perhaps of several million pounds, simply on the fabric of the building. Even with that sort of expenditure, Summerland will still represent poor facilities badly sited and, I believe, a waste of public money. We believe strongly that Summerland should be operated on a minimum cost basis, certainly from a sporting point of view, until the new national centre comes on stream and then we should cut our losses. Your Excellency, I do not intend this morning to go through every point that we have recommended in the report. Hon. members have read the report themselves and, I am quite sure, are fully aware of our recommendations. I would follow that, though, Your Excellency, by commenting on one other area, and that is the considerable importance which is placed on the organisation and management of sport and leisure with my department carrying the primary responsibility. It is most important that management keeps pace with new facilities which must be operated in a professional manner to the benefit of all. Good management is not, however, simply about new facilities. We must also ensure that we get maximum usage from I those facilities available already around the Island, particularly those owned by Government. The report is not just about new facilities, it is about community involvement and sporting and leisure activities in every part of the Island; it is about i, optimising access to those facilities; it is about enhanced recreational opportunities for the whole of the Isle of Man, and I am sure that I do not need to remind hon. members that at the present time this Government does not have a policy in relation to leisure and sport. The report provides the basic requirements and management structure to enable a proper policy to be evolved. It is also vital to recognise the role of leisure development within the overall tourism strategy of my department.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced 11602 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
Whilst in the short term the Island can market what it has got, the limited success of the strategy must not be allowed to mask the major deficiencies in the present tourist product. The Isle of Man has fallen a long way behind other resort areas in the provision of tourist facilities. Not only has there been no investment in new facilities for 20 years, but much of what we had is now badly out of date or, in fact, already closed down. This has come at a time when increased competition has fuelled demand for holidays abroad and increased domestic holidaymakers' expectations. The average tourist has become more sophisticated and discerning. At the same time too much of our tourism product in the Isle of Man is substandard in comparison with competitor destinations. If we are to sustain the recovery in our tourist industry, the provision of new sporting and leisure facilities must be our top priority. Your Excellency, the Sports Review Committee has placed before you a vision, a report which will, if adopted, lead to a new era in leisure and sport on the Island. It is true the facilities recommended will not come cheap — visions rarely are cheap — but they can be value for money, and this is what we are aiming for. The Aqua Leisure Centre, costed at today's prices, is estimated at £6.6 million. The full Noble's National Sports Centre — and I emphasise the word 'full' because that includes not only the running track, the synthetic pitch, it also includes a sports hall, ancillary hall, indoor bowling, rinks and indoor tennis and other ancillary facilities, so I am talking about the full complex — is estimated at around £8 million, but these prices have, Your Excellency, to be considered in the context of negligible Government investment in leisure over the last two decades, and I should highlight that that is negligible investment in what is now the world's biggest growth industry. In that context the Isle of Man has been left behind, and not just by large mainland resorts which we have traditionally looked on as being our competition, but also by other small communities — Jersey and Guernsey in particular, and even Shetland, all have this type of facility, and I would remind hon. members too that what we are proposing is not a single development; the recommendations that we have put forward for you today will be brought in on a phased basis if approved. We recommend over a five-year period. So we are not, as perhaps has been suggested, expecting to complete all this in one go. Your Excellency, we have heard a great deal during the last year about the development of a prosperous and caring society. I believe that the proposals I am recommending today fall completely within that policy. This ambitious development strategy will benefit all sectors of tourism leading to a more prosperous industry. Just as importantly, it could benefit all sectors of our community through enhanced leisure opportunities providing an improved quality of life. It calls for a positive response, not only from members of Tynwald but all those who are in a position to influence the changes necessary over the next five years. Hon. members, we have reached a crossroads. We can take the easy route and reject the recommendations of this report. This will ensure the continued decline in the standard of provision of our sporting and leisure facilities and will be another nail in the coffin of Manx tourism, or we can use the challenge that the report offers and set the course for an exciting future for tourism and leisure on the Island into the 21st century. Your Excellency, the prizes for positive action are substantial, and the choice now lies with hon. members. Your Excellency, I beg to move.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1603
The Governor: I look for a seconder.
Dr. Orme: I beg to second, Your Excellency.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, it was on the 24th March 1987 that I had the privilege of standing in this Court and proposing a motion that 'Tynwald is of the opinion that there should be constructed at St. John's a Manx National Sports Centre, including a modest football stadium with running track and permanent buildings for indoor sports with full keep-fit facilities and, adjacent thereto, a • permanent showground for agricultural shows and special events, and such project should be phased over several years and financed equally by Government and private industry.' Your Excellency, since then and certainly in recent days, I would have every justification, I believe, to be very angry as to what has happened with what was then my vision of the future for sport and the provision that we should make for young people of the Isle of Man for the years to come. But I am not angry Your Excellency, I am sad. I am saddened that such an idea, such a vision for the future of our youth should get bogged down and, after being to a meeting last night and seeing that such an idea was being rammed down the throats of people, so many people upset, it really does sadden me that such a thing should ever get to it. I am sorry that I even proposed it if that is what it has come to, but that is what it has come to, Your Excellency. Now, Your Excellency, I think it is only right and proper that I could refer back to the words in proposing my motion last time, because, looking at it, I still find that I agree with the majority of what I said then. Of course, one has to be ready to adapt one views and so on, but many of the basic proposals I made then still stand solid now. Indeed, you can stand my views then against what has happened since and what is now being proposed. Your Excellency, in moving my resolution for this hon. Court this is what I said. I said, 'I feel that there is an awarement amongst members for the requirement to show leadership and formulate a policy which will satisfy a need in our society to provide permanent sporting facilities for the Manx people and also to create new opportunities to enhance the attraction of the Island to the tourist industry. In moving my resolution I am conscious of the pressures upon the hon. members for Douglas and Onchan to press for an investment in Douglas direct. May I respectfully, therefore, request these members to give the resolution a fair hearing.' Your Excellency, I still ask those members to give the resolution and the amendment that I will move in due course, a fair hearing. I said, 'This resolution is timely in view of recent proposals circulated to this Court to give consideration to substantial expenditure for one specialised project in Douglas. I ask members to have a wider vision of tourism and leisure in the Isle of Man. I feel that we have got to get away from our previous and perhaps even our present concept of tourism, even though that concept has generally served us well for over half a century. We must be realistic and accept that the day of the seaside holiday town has now drawn to a close. Clearly certain seaside holiday towns in the United Kingdom will be the exception where they can attract daytrippers to sustain their operations. Again we are not in that league as witnessed in the natural run-down of our traditional holiday trade over recent years' and Your Excellency, have we had an update in the visiting numbers coming to our Island since then, since I spoke those words? The answer is no, we
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced 11604 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 have not. We are not in that league to have an Aqua Leisure Centre with hot water in a river outside, a lazy river. What about the heating costs? And can you imagine the Manx people all the year round bobbing down a slow moving river outside the Villa? (Laughter and interruptions) I do not know how such a proposal could come forward, to be quite honest, Your Excellency, but they are very, very expensive facilities, let us face it, very expensive to run, very expensive, and whereas in one or two seaside places they may well be able to afford them because not of their permanent visitors but because of the trippers. They may well be able to afford that but we are not in that league and, Your Excellency, that has to be accepted; it is a fact of life. I would say at this point, Your Excellency, that I do favour the construction of a standard-sized swimming pool for Douglas without question. I promise my support to the Douglas and Onchan members for that. Douglas is the correct place to have a standard size swimming pool so that they can have competitions that will be recognised. I accept that without question, but as far as going further then I do have my reservations, and when you go to a presentation about a slow river and in the wintertime, well then, it is really getting out of this world. Now, I said that to achieve this we must have a set course of action and I went on to briefly examine the financial help for the summer attractions in Douglas and the losses that were being run up then, and I am not aware, Your Excellency, that anything has changed. I quoted then £150,000 that had been voted to keep Summerland open. The projected loss at the Villa Marina at that time was £209,000. The Gaiety Theatre is subsidised; now I am not saying for one minute that we should not have the Gaiety Theatre and so on, but they are all costing money and, Your Excellency, perhaps I could draw members attention to the paper that has been distributed from the Treasury minister, Mr. Cannan, which is very timely, and I compliment him for putting this paper around today just to try and put some sanity back into this discussion when we are talking about £8 million, £10 million and so on. Your Excellency, if we go back to St. John's, what I propose is certainly needed but it could be built over a number of years; that is what I said. You draw up plans for the complete installation so that it fits together like a jigsaw, but we could start off with what is desirable, deemed to be desirable to the sports people in the first instance, and I do hear there is a lot of demand for a running track. Now, I do not think that a running track in itself is a very attractive thing; you have got to have other facilities around it, but you could certainly have an overall plan and then build piecemeal as we can afford it, and perhaps I could also say that I did suggest that private industry could join in, which is not suggested or has not been suggested in the recent days. I had a vision, Your Excellency, that the young people of the Island — and of course the older people but we refer to the younger population, I suppose, in terms of sport — would train, compete, in basically their own areas. In other words, the Noble's Park and the Bowl would remain as they are and/or be developed in a manner acceptable to the people of Douglas. I would hope that at Peel they would have a similar facility. I think that is growing to a certain extent; there appears to be building round the Queen Elizabeth II School. I would hope Ramsey would have a good minor facility around the Castle Rushen school. I want to see more facilities for Port Erin and Port St. Mary; I think they are justified too, but these, Your Excellency, are satellite facilities, that is the way I see it, and that is for Douglas
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1605 to develop in its own right. The wider aspect, the vision, was to have a national sports stadium, and national is something special, not just another Noble's Park or an uprated Noble's Park or at the Bowl, but something special, and Tynwald, I think, would be an admirable name; that is why I suggested St. John's. St. John's, with that setting — (a) it is well sheltered; it has got one of the most beautiful, awe- inspiring backdrops on this Island; it has got the land there — no argument; it has got the parish commissioners welcoming us and wanting to assist; it could enhance our national day; we could have some permanent facilities there, car parking, restaurant, whatever — permanent facilities, and perhaps the Tynwald Day itself could be enhanced and developed because my first experience —
Mr. Delaney: We could do the hundred yards dash! (Laughter) Mr. Corrin: — and if the hon. minister would have the dignity to listen when I am speaking about our national day, my first experience of climbing on the Tynwald Hill last year was to sit down and turn round and see the people haring off down the road to the car park in their thousands. Mr. Brown: They heard you were there! (Laughter)
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency — no, it is not funny, Your Excellency, I could see that our national day could be developed so that the people of the Isle of Man could have a real day out and there could be events to hold them, keep them - an enjoyable day. That is what I feel about our nation. If there are those who have no vision about the future of our nation, then I feel sorry for them. But, Your Excellency, what went wrong? Instead of looking at this in-house, it was handed out to consultants, experts, and we are yet to know how much it cost but, because it was handed out, because there is a report, it does not mean to say we have got to accept it and I think there was a precedent set for that yesterday; indeed, our Chief Minister said that when Wallem's were doing their report he was considering stopping them in the middle. It is a pity, I would say, that Torkildsen's were not stopped at the beginning! Cannot we decide things on our Island? Have we got no grey matter whatsoever? Well, I think we have, Your Excellency; I think we have the ability to decide what is good for our people and what is good for our Island. Your Excellency, we have listened to the Minister for Tourism who also claims to be the Minister of Sport. He said that we do not want second best, so therefore... and then he went on to proclaim the merits of Noble's Park, and yet he said, 'We cannot have Noble's Park' after condemning the Bowl, and he was not very complimentary to the people who live down in that area, not complimentary at all — perhaps Mr. May will be interested. It is not good for reasons of security, he said — there must be a different element living up by St. Ninians!
Mr. Kermode: Certainly more money.
Mr. Corrin: That was one reason — a reason of security. He condemned the Bowl because of the direction of the running track, the siting of it there, and then he said, 'However, if we cannot have St. Ninians, Noble's Park, we will then look at the Bowl', but he started off by saying that he did not want second best. This
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced T1606 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 is illogical. Your Excellency, at the meeting last night the people were passionately against having their area of grass, their open space, interfered with; there is no question about it and, Your Excellency, inevitably Douglas is going to grow out in that direction, and if we do not preserve these green spaces for the future, then once they are gone that is it, they are gone forever. How far reaching and what vision the people of London had. When you fly over London — it is referred to as a big city — I would say that there is probably more acreage of green grass in London than there is in the whole Isle of Man, because those people had the foresight to preserve these open spaces —
Mr. Kermode: They have the Palace there.
Mr. Corrin: — and we have a responsibility to preserve the open spaces, the existing... and there is only two, for the future generations to come. The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, said to the people last night, 'Grab this opportunity because if you don't it will be gone forever'. That is what he said, - I was there, I heard him. On what basis, what reason, has he got to say that on behalf of this hon. Court? On what basis has he got to say to the people, 'You grab it now; forget whatever you , feel about Noble's Park, you grab it now because it will never come your way again'? That is what he said. What reason? He even brought the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Cain, into the argument and said, `You have heard him; he is against it'. (Laughter) The hon. member for West Douglas was saying, 'Hold on there — what about the cost?' That was what he was saying. He did not say he was against it at all. But Your Excellency, there are other considerations. The Royal Agricultural Show — if we are looking at the Bowl, I understand that they have certain legal rights about presentation of the show continuing at the Bowl. I understand that they do and that could go on for a number of years. I have referred to Mr. Cannan's letter about costs and the building industry and so on. I referred to accepting the report. Another matter, Your Excellency, which is of local content — this is where the experts do not score at all — last night, up at Noble's Park, it was a reasonable summer's night for this Island last night; it was fine, indeed it was the longest day of the year. (Interruptions and laughter)
Mr. Corrin: The wind — it is a windy, bleak spot up there, and that is not conducive to people attending and supporting sport, and I would say that St. Johns scores all the way on that issue, and that was on the longest summer's night of the year. What is it like for the other nine months of the year in wintertime? How many people hang around? As one local resident said, we have to hang on to the gateposts and the trees up there in the wintertime, and she was quite right. I have said about the welcome from the German Parish Commissioners and members have had a letter from the parish commissioners circulated supporting the case. If I could just refer to a couple of items in the Torkildsen report, Your Excellency, they refer to journey times and if I could say on page 11, they say, 'Journey times on the Island by road are deceptively long relative to the distance travelled on many routes due to the narrow and winding roads'. Have you ever heard such rubbish? As a lady said last night, it takes nine minutes to get to St. John's. 'Despite high levels of car ownership, public transport services are vital to several sections of the
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1607 leisure market, namely non-car-owners, children and the elderly and disabled visitors to the Island'. 'Despite the high levels of the public transport services' — you could nearly ask, what public transport services? We do not have any, do we? Certainly, after half past six of an evening they are very, very few and far between. We do not depend on them; that is a fact of life, that is the way it is in the Isle of Man today, and you cannot wind the clock back, Your Excellency. On page 29, national facilities, they said, 'Tradition and sentiment argue that a national track should be located at St. John's; indeed there is an excellent site available which could form a natural amphitheatre. However, it is our strong belief that to attract frequent use a track must be located with easy access of a substantial population'. This argument about Douglas — what about the rest of the Island? Do we not have a look-in? (Interruption) Is it on the basis that no one outside of Douglas is ever going to use these facilities because we cannot get in just as, if it was at St. John's, Douglas cannot get out to St. Johns? Does the argument not work the other way? They say, 'Many athletes are children dependent on parents' cars. Although St. Johns can be reached by road' — well, that is new, isn't it? (Laughter) I always wondered what was wrong with the people coming from that direction, looking tired and a little bit — you know! 'Journey times are in our view prohibitive for regular use'. Are you listening, members? And we paid for this rubbish! (Laughter) No wonder at the presentation it was 'George this' and 'Joe that'! Do not forget, members, people who made this presentation haye a vested interest, you know, to push this; do not ever forget that. Your Excellency, I started by saying I had a vision of a simple start of a facility to get sport going on the Island. I propose that it should be at St. John's. We have got to bear in mind costs, we have got to have an order of priority of costs and what Mr. Cannan... and I go back and I make no apology, because what he has said, what is in the pipeline for this Island, sewerage, all going into the sea — thank you, colleagues, for sending us to Jersey; I am not much wiser now. They do not have theirs going into the sea and it is going to cost many millions of pounds to do what they are doing but they• are only doing the minimum, which should have been done on this Island before now. They are incineration, have been since the middle of the 1950's, and what the hon. Minister for Local Government and the Environment has told us so far about costs — you can treble any figure that he has mentioned, you can treble it —
Mr. Delaney: I will ask you to substantiate that later.
Mr. Corrin: You can treble any figure that he has ever mentioned in this Court. That is what it is going to cost us just for starters.
A Member: Rubbish!
Mr. Corrin: And the timescale that he has mentioned does not make any sense.
Mr. Delaney: Bird rubbish! (Laughter)
• Mr. Corrin: I appreciate that the member went down to check on us what we were doing down there. (Laughter) Your Excellency, this is all relevant to this pie
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced T1608 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 in the sky that is being proposed because it is all to money, it is all relevant. (Interruption) Your Excellency, we have Bills — what about housing? It is scandalous what is going on in this Island. A two-bedroomed bungalow, Your Excellency, is relevant to this debate. Two years ago it was on the market for £25,000 and £81,000 is being asked for it today. Where are our young people going to get houses? Or am I going to listen to what I heard in Jersey, that Jerseymen were saying 'We go to France to retire' or they leave the island. That is the road we are going down, Your Excellency. Let us get our priorities right, back to Mr. Cannan — he is the Treasury; back to what the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Cain, said in the Budget debate: it is money, order our priority. Chief Minister, I know that you do have a feeling for this, I know that you have a feeling of what is going on, the housing situation, the scarcity of land — never mind the grand plan where there is land for 5,000 houses identified; try and get planning permission, and the hon. member Mr. Gilbey will tell you the sewerage in those areas cannot take it, it is turned down, meaning that there is many millions of pounds to be spent on local sewerage around this Island. This is what is going on. Let us get our priorities right and I make no apologies for expressing these views. Your Excellency, yes, we can make a start, a modest start, on sports facilities, but what is being proposed to me is just nonsense. I would support a simple straightforward baths for Douglas, no problem, and I support what I am proposing for St. John's is that it is a start. Draw up an overall scheme but then just do it in stages over maybe ten years, what we can afford in order of priority with other things that, desirable as the sports business is, nevertheless we have got to get the basics of life fitted into. Therefore, Your Excellency, I am proposing — I am not trying to kill everything off — my amendment is that at the end I request the Department of Tourism and Transport to reconsider situating the national sports centre at St. John's. It is as simple as that. If nothing else, Your Excellency, it will give us time to reflect, because last night those honest genuine people at that meeting were saying that they had not had time to think about anything; in fact they had not seen the report, they knew nothing about it. 'What is all the hurry?' they were saying. That is not democracy, Your Excellency — what is all the rush? It is trying to stampede this through. I do ask us to slow down and let us do this with some common sense and I trust that this hon. House will support my amendment. I beg to move:
At the end add —
(4) requests the Department of Tourism and Transport to reconsider situating the National Sports Centre at St. John's.
The President of the Council: Your Excellency, yesterday was the longest day and I do not think today is going to be much shorter! (Laughter) Your Excellency, I would actually second the member for Rushen's motion for St. John's and not for any parochial reason — (Laughter) No, there is one good reason and he made it. I went across in the last ten days and I drove into a town like Northampton where they had 20 or 30 acres of green area within the town boundary, lovely landscaped land. Douglas has very little open green space left and once it is gone it is gone for ever. Once it is built on there is never any way back and to me it would be
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1609 absolutely diabolical for Douglas if this were to happen and they were to lose that area, and for that reason alone I will support the hon. member. I do appreciate that the Minister for Tourism is right, he needs indoor aqua facilities — indoor; I do not think the outdoor heated... and I support that; that is absolutely essential for Douglas area. I am glad that there is still one swimming pool in the Island working at Castletown. I am just trying to remember who was chairman of the board when that was done — (Interruption) Never mind — no, it was not Percy but anyway, that has been a very successful pool and it is essential, actually, that they have that part. But I am absolutely certain that it would be disastrous for Douglas and for future generations if that were to be put under concrete in any shape or form, and I would entirely oppose that and I understand entirely people being up in arms about it. We are building in every possible area even where there are big gardens, and we are jamming in another house in the corner and there will not be a green patch seen in the built-up areas in a very short time, and I think we have got to stop and think again in the long term and the future of the Island, and I believe I go down... and I was associated with the Royal Manx and, in spite of what the hon. member for Rushen says, when we had the show down there we had great difficulty actually protecting the facility that was put down there. We had actually dogs on the scene and the lads were challenging the man in charge of the dog to let it go to see whether they could catch him, and they were going up the marquees and down the other side — there is vandalism about, there is no doubt about that. It is a difficult area. But the point I was making was, the cricket pitch is down there and people say it is within the Douglas area but in fact people still drive down there for that and there are very few people, even if it were at St. Ninian's, who would actually walk to the site and when you drive down to the St. George V Park ten more minutes will lead you to St. Johns, there is no doubt whatever about that, and if you look at actually the sporting facilities that exist today, whether it is running or cycling, you go to St. Johns at the weekend and that is where the people are. They are gathered there in great numbers and over the Patrick Road, round that area, that is where they congregate for sport, there is no doubt whatever. Swimming is a different matter entirely for the Aquadrome, but I am absolutely certain that the ideal in the long term is the St. John's area, I am sure of that, and please, please, for the sake of future generations protect that little bit of green that you have got and do not put it under concrete.
Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, the resolution that has been moved by the Minister for Tourism and Transport is in three parts and I would wish to comment on the second and third parts of the resolution in particular, but before I do so I think it is right and proper for me to explain that I am speaking as an elected representative and not in my capacity as a Trustee of the Henry Bloom Noble Trust, and in this latter position I would confirm that I have no pecuniary or beneficial interest in that trust and that, accordingly, as I understand it, the provisions of Standing Order 71 do not apply so that, so far as I am aware, I am not precluded from commenting on the issues that are before us today. I would, however, mention that I am in receipt of a petition in my capacity as a trustee of that trust relating to Noble's Park which has been signed by about 600 people, and I will refer to that petition a little bit later on. Your Excellency, there is one point that I must take issue with, one point made
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced T1610 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 by the member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, which I find I am completely opposed to, and that is that he stated that we had the ability within this Island to determine the issues that are before us today and perhaps other issues ourselves, and indicated that there was no need to employ these outside experts. I am sorry, but I believe that there is one asset that we in this Island have which we under-use, it is the ability to employ people of the highest expertise to advise us as to the development of future policy, and I would start my remarks, Your Excellency, by congratulating the Department of Tourism for commissioning the report which, in principle, in my view has many commendable features in it. If I could move on to one or two other points of principles, the first one — and this I did try and bring out at the Budget debate but it is an important matter of principle — is this: that expenditure is a matter of the availability of resources and the determination of a relevant order of priority within an overall plan to achieve stated objectives, and it is interesting to note that even yesterday one of the members of the Tourist Department, Dr. Orme, did indicate that there had been a lack of consideration of long-term objectives and this is one of my preliminary points - that these objectives for both the maintenance and indeed the expansion of essential services and support for the expansion of the economic base — and that is partly what we are considering this morning — in turn provide the funds both to fund the essential services that we all know about but also to improve the quality of life. This principle has, in my view, to be accepted by us all and has to be related to an agreed annual level of capital and indeed revenue expenditure and I will come back to that issue in a moment. Indeed, I would say that these principles should and indeed must apply to each and every Department of Government. I am not attacking the Department of Tourism on this report alone and saying that all the other departments do not need to be commented upon; these principles apply to every department of Government. Now, secondly, when you apply these principles to the provision of tourism, transport and indeed leisure facilities, and accepting that both the resident population of this Island and the tourist sector are both important economic contributors - and nobody would deny that, and indeed we would all accept that we are trying to improve their economic contribution — we must place both the proposals before us today within, firstly, the total identified needs of the department and, secondly, the total identified needs of the Isle of Man, and then relate these issues, once they have been identified, to the total available money that is in the pot. Now nobody denies that the tourist sector and indeed the leisure sector, which properly, in my view, it is being suggested should form part of their remit because the two issues do overlap, does need major surgery; nobody denies that, and it is because as a major contributor to our economic base and because it needs specific attention that causes the problem that we have got this morning. We are not talking about a department which just needs to tick over for the next few years and replace one or two assets that have worn out. We are talking about a department that needs major surgery. The next point I wish to make is this: in determining what form the operation shall take and indeed who shall perform the operation we need to determine what benefits and attractions the Island possesses so that it can sell them to potential visitors, not what we think is good about the Island as a tourist resort but what is perceived by people outside the Island as being its principal attraction. Now if
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1611 in fact leisure facilities of the type that are within the report that we are considering today is in fact the number one priority above everything else — and that seemed to be the impression that the minister gave me — well, so be it but I would like to know on what that assertion is based, because my reading of the report from the University of Surrey does not lead me necessarily to that conclusion. The University of Surrey report, in my opinion, is certainly pointing the way, but what it is doing is to say that there is a great deal of work yet to be done to identify the attributes that the Island possesses and to identify the priorities in terms of both revenue and indeed capital needs. We need an overall plan for the re-generation of the tourist and leisure sectors — nobody denies that — and we would all support a properly preconceived plan; I would certainly. We need such a plan which can be approved by Tynwald and which can then be slotted into our overall plan in terms of the economic needs of the Island. Now the other economic areas that may need support, and about which we know nothing at this present time, are possibly the agricultural sector, possibly the industrial sector, possibly other sectors which hopefully are going to help us to diversify out of our current pretty well constrained economic base. We need to look at them all. Then this report which we were to consider today can be slotted into an overall plan and I would at this stage support the contention that there are indeed very many good recommendations in the report that has been prepared by the firm of management consultants, and I would support the minister in his contention that it does set out a framework in which the administration and the development of policy can be created and that is fine — I fully support the contention. It is interesting in passing that if you look at pages 31 to 33 where the 17 recommendations are contained, they do not there specifically mention Noble's Park, although Noble's Park is mentioned on certainly more than one occasion elsewhere. Your Excellency, I must make this fundamental point in case I am cast in the role of Jeremiah: I am not, repeat not, against the proposals in principle for restructuring both tourism and leisure facilities in this Island, but it has to be done in a logical and approved manner, and can I, at this time, refer to this Treasury memorandum dated 21st June? On the second page of this document you will notice that the total capital estimates insofar as they have been received amount in total to £100 million. It is by no means a final figure and in fact the only expenditure that is listed there relating to the improvement of the economic base relates to tourism and indeed the heritage in terms of the Museum. None of the other economic contributors are mentioned in terms of any Government support, primarily, I suppose, because the information has not yet come through. The next point: the total, incomplete as it may be, is £100 million; £40 million of it is tourist related over those three years and yet — and this is the principal point I am trying to get over — we have no overall strategic plan before us today as to the way in which the tourist sector is to be developed over the next three years. There are certainly figures in this plan, tentative as they may be, relating to the Aqua Leisure Centre and the national sports centre which total no more than £10 million in these three years; there is another £30 million that is tourist related; is it all related to hotels? What other infrastructural support is envisaged? We do not know. We have, and we must have, a means of assessing the needs of the industry and of assessing the support that we should give to its regeneration, but we are speaking without information at the present time.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced 11612 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
The next point, relating to the £100 million: the last sentence on that page says, 'Current debt charges on past capital projects total £12.28 million so that the additional £15 million a year which would be needed to finance the £100 million that is listed' and we know that that may not be the right total, 'The additional £15 million a year to finance this programme is significant'. If you add the two together you are over £27 million. Now what proportion of our total annual expenditure should be allocated to fund capital debt? Do we know? Has it been determined? And where does tourism fit into it? Now the next point that I would like to make is this: if I were just being asked to consider both the Aqua Leisure Centre and the national sports centre, proposals that are before us today, in isolation disregarding everything else, and assuming that we have agreed that the resources are available and that they should receive the highest priority, then I for one would support the further expenditure of £250,000 on the plans for the Aqua Leisure Centre on the Villa Marina site, but the problem I face with that one at this moment of time is that if we agreed to the £1/4 million at this stage and out of context in terms of what I have attempted to describe in the last few minutes and then there necessarily has to be a pause because of the other commitments that we all agree have got to be dealt with, the cry will go up, 'But we are committed to it, otherwise you are wasting your £1/4 million;' that is what will be said, rightly or wrongly. Now, as I mentioned, and I would just like to interpose this at this stage, I accept, as I have said, that these recommendations do not specifically mention Noble's Park in the summary and I would also like to say that Mr. Bell in his capacity as minister went into a baptism of fire last night and he did emerge in my view with credit. Now applying the same narrow criteria with regard to the availability of resources and the desirability, I support the concept of a national sports centre although I certainly would question Noble's Park specifically for the reason mentioned by the President of the Council. I would not dream of questioning that from a narrow point of view of the needs of sport Noble's Park is the preferred site. I accept that, but I do say that because Douglas has comparatively few green spaces and their use and their continued development has to be examined on a wider environmental basis than just leisure or sporting facilities in the knowledge that they should be available at all reasonable times for the whole of the population and not just for those who are interested in either participating in watching or sporting activities, I question the desirability of approving Noble's Park as a site. Having said that, I welcome the point made by the minister during his speech that at this stage the mind is still open with regard to a specific site; I welcome that. And as the President said, it is true that once any space is built on it has gone for ever and that is difficult. The next point that I wish to make is that the petition that I have received, which contains about 25 pages of signatures, has been signed or purports to have been signed — (Interruption) — thank you, sir — has been or purports to have been signed by approaching 600 people. I accept that a lot of people have signed because they do not like change; that is natural. The reasons why people sign are of course up to them, but I think it would be fair and reasonable that I read out the terms on which they purport to have signed: 'We, the undersigned being residents and ratepayers of the Borough of Douglas, are deeply shocked by the news of the proposed sports and leisure complex to be constructed in the green fields of Noble's Park. We unanimously request you all not to allow your stewardship of the trust
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1613 property to be abrogated and promise to support you totally in maintaining the status quo' — a little bit fiery, I must admit, but nevertheless I think the intent is quite clear. Now the next point I wish to make concerns costs. I understand that the total cost of the Villa Marina proposal, with due allowance for inflation on the assumption that it proceeds quickly — and that is what is envisaged in this brief summary here, that it starts perhaps next year — might amount, allowing for inflation, to about £8 million and that the sports complex again, if it starts in two years' time or whatever, might amount to about £11 million. That is including an allowance for inflation in the total construction costs. Thus we have total expenditure approaching nearly or approximately £20 million in respect of which the annual charge to revenue, before taking account of any on-going revenue deficit, might amount to, say, £3 million per annum and, as has been inferred, 1 think, in the Treasury document, we need to consider these proposals both within the wider needs of Government and its available resources. Your Excellency, I would now like to turn to the needs of tourism in the Island, and in so doing I fully accept that the issues before us today will form a part of those tourist needs. I am aware of the assistance, as I said, being sought by the department from the University of Surrey but, as I indicated, those issues require further examination to enable an independent and objective view to be taken perhaps by answering the following points: firstly, what are the perceived attractions of the Isle of Man now and in the future as a tourist resort and as a place which provides leisure facilities? What are they? Secondly, depending on the answer to that question, a programme of capital expenditure relating to both the tourist infrastructure and accommodation needs to be prepared. Thirdly, at the same time an objective reappraisal can be made of the present annual recurring revenue support given by Government to the industry. We should not overlook that. We spend somewhere between £6 or £7 million a year on the department and the related transport undertakings. We need to constantly reappraise the benefits that come to the Isle of Man from the support that is given — anybody running any organisation should do that on a regular basis — and, arising from those exercises, in my view a series of strategic objectives can be set and associated policies created, and finally the contribution of both private enterprise... and we must not forget private enterprise in this; tourism is not just an industry which is going to rely wholly or should rely wholly on Government support. It is interesting to note that in Jersey there is no support given to the hotel and boarding house industry by Government whatsoever. I just mention that in passing, but the contribution of Government and indeed of private enterprise to this sector has got to be determined and planned on a joint venture basis. I have no doubt at all that the issues before us today should be included in that plan and indeed that support of this most important sector must form part of overall Government expenditure, but until such time as the plans have been prepared and the needs of Government funding in all other areas... and mention has already been made of areas like sewerage, incineration, hospitals and education, to name but a few, and indeed the perceived needs of the other economic sectors have also been determined, I cannot for the life of me — and this is my principal point — see how we can support the issues that are before us today in isolation. That is the core of the problem. How can we support the issues before us today in isolation? If we can, is it on the basis of 'first come, first served' because I have
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced T1614 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 got my plan out and therefore I can lay it before Tynwald and therefore that is next in line? That is no way to progress and I am sure it was not meant that issues should be addressed in that manner. It is for the reasons that I have attempted to outline, Your Excellency, that I am proposing the amendment to the resolution which has been circulated in my name, the effect of which, I hope, firstly is to remove sub-paragraph (2) at this stage and to amend sub-paragraph (3) by removing the word 'remaining' in the second line thereof. The effect of the amendment is to encourage both the department to look at its wider responsibilities and, once these have been determined, to relate them to the issues before us today in an order of priority which, hopefully, can be approved by Executive Council within its wider responsibilities. Your Excellency, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:
Delete paragraph 2 and the word "remaining" in the subsequent paragraph, which should be re-numbered.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, hon. members, my message this morning will be brief and simple, will be to the point. Fortunately, perhaps, it will be in contradiction to my colleague who has just spoken. I rise to support the resolution in principle, and the principle that the Island should have modern and comprehensive sporting and leisure facilities for both tourists and residents alike, and I believe the people of the Isle of Man expect, and indeed are entitled to expect, provision of proper leisure and sporting facilities, or if I could put it another way and pose a question that young people say to me from time to time, `Why should we not have them? The young people on the other side have them.', Now, I have circulated a letter setting out Treasury or Government's expected capital expenditure in order to assist members in the implications of the cost of the resolution. It is a guideline of what is expected, but I have to say, as I have said before, that there are a lot of proposals coming forward for capital expenditure for various years that never actually get done in those years. We have had a carry forward this year from what should have been done last year and I suspect that much of what is in the Budget for this year will certainly not even be started this year, but will go forward to the next year but the intention is there and we see what is in view for the future. Now, there may be hon. members who will oppose or indeed seek to amend the resolution on the principle that we cannot afford or indeed that there are matters of capital expenditure of greater importance, and I have heard this story in this hon. Court time and time again, not necessarily for tourism but for anything that as particular member does not wish should be proceeded with, and so I suggest that in a period of a buoyant economy, if we cannot afford these facilities then we will never be able to afford them, because always somebody will say, 'Well, we are in a bit of a recession' or 'Times are not right' and we will always be putting them back, so you are being asked today to make a commitment to sport and to leisure. If we oppose the resolution on the basis that there are matters of greater priority, the person who opposes the resolution perhaps in principle will always find something that he thinks is of greater priority, so I expect you in the course of this debate to hear the views of people who will want something of greater priority because perhaps they think in their mind, and they are entitled to think it, that has
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1615 a greater priority. On the principle of, 'Well, can we afford it?' I am reminded of an old story that, well, if everybody did not get married until they could afford it or they did not buy a house until they could afford it, or they did not buy a car until they could actually afford it then I suspect that the sales of bridal gowns, houses and motorcars would be distinctly depressed. But I am not being irresponsible, I am endeavouring to be pragmatic, because I believe that subject to us maintaining a balance and a diversified economy and a continuing momentum in sustained growth, we will be able to manage. Provided everybody acts responsibly with expenditure we will be able to manage our capital expenditure and the ensuing revenue expenditure implications. Now I am pledged, like many of us are — and it is always easy to put a blank on something for the young; we always think, 'Well, we did not have it; do they really need it? I did not have a skiing holiday; should my children go for a skiing holiday; Should the family funds be spent on it? It is easy for the middle-aged generation always to think, well, perhaps that is not necessary expenditure but —
Mr. Kermode: Those who have got the money.
Mr. Cannan: — but times are changing and I see from schools there are trips for children now that never existed 30/40 years ago; the schools are organising trips and parents contribute towards those trips, and it is part of an onward movement, and I say sport and leisure is moving forward too. I believe that a prosperous and caring society must be about many things, and one of the many things it must be about is the quality of life for our people and the quality of life for our young people in terms of leisure and sport. Now, I do not intend to become involved in the arguments of where this should be sited, I do not intend to become involved at this stage in the arguments of the detail, but what I do say is the principle of the resolution is worth supporting, because what are we being asked to support? If you look at the resolution before you it is in three parts. We are being asked to receive the report; that is all.
Mr. Delaney: That is all.
Mr. Cannan: You are being asked to approve expenditure not exceeding £1/4 million to look into the proposal for an Aqua Leisure Centre. Now that is already in your Pink Book, it was already part of the Budget, it is a column 3 entry in the Pink Book. It is not new expenditure or expenditure that has not already gone through or been scrutinised, it is a column 3 expenditure in your Pink Book. What are you being asked to do for the third one? To permit the Tourist Department to come forward and formulate its proposals on how it foresees its capital expenditure. I suggest that what the report says is the report of experts and it has been said, and I read it only a few days ago, that Lord Salisbury, sometime Prime Minister of England in Queen Victoria's time, said, 'The work of experts can indeed be strong wine that occasionally needs to be diluted with water' and it may be that the proposals there can be diluted —
Mr. Delaney: Go easy on the water!
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced T1616 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
Mr. Cannan: They may be a lesser extent, but all we are doing today is receiving the report, asking the Tourist Department to formulate its proposals to come back here. We are not giving them any cheque for anything except the £1/4 million for maximum preliminary expenses already budgeted in the Pink Book to look at the proposals for an Aqua Leisure Centre. Now there is no commitment that, having spent the £1/4 million, they go forward, because I recall that when a preliminary expenses for the secondary school at Onchan were spent, it did not go forward. All right, there was a loss of £1/4 million but there was a saving of £10 million, and that is the way we must look at this £1/4 million. It is not an ultimate commitment but it is a commitment to make a start on preliminary expenses to go forward for facilities for tourism and leisure. On that basis and on the basis of the resolution it has my support.
Mr. Barton: Your Excellency, I must congratulate the Minister for Tourism and his staff in his efforts to appraise hon. members prior to today's resolution. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the presentations as I was off the Island, but I have had three weeks to thoroughly study the Pickering Torkildsden report and, prior to that, the report from the University of Surrey — good holiday reading. I understand that the aims of the Tourist Department is to promote tourism for the Isle of Man. I fully support the actions of the minister in getting out into the market place throughout the world. I congratulate and I fully support the commissioning of the various reports and investigations by the department over the past 18 months, but it worries me that Government or a Government Department involves itself too much as an operator. Your Excellency, yesterday the hon. member for tourism spoke rightly against nationalisation or too much involvement with the shipping line, yet the Tourist Department is heavily and continuously involved as a tour operator. I fear that if we carry on as a Government being so involved, not only will we still have the heavy- staffed Everymann operation, we will create another large operational area of involvement in tourism which elsewhere is promoted by the private sector. I endorse what the hon. member for West Douglas' comments re the need for major surgery. I think the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland are the only major places with so much total Government involvement in tourism. We are now being asked, it would appear, to support a total operational involvement and I cannot support this. I think it is right that the Government should have a department that actively promotes the Island and carries out the various investigations but I would urge caution in being a total operator. The original Summerland was a good and successful concept at the time, regretfully with a sad ending. Its successor has not been a success. The private sector is not interested as it is and Government has rightly stepped in in a holding operation. Its lack of success may indicate a market change. The Surrey Reports indicate various areas we should be promoting, which I am pleased the Department of Tourism are pursuing. We cannot, or, should I say, the department, cannot achieve all it wants at the same time, but it should highlight its priority and programme a little clearer considering costs, return and need. I support the amendment and in fact I will second the amendment by the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Cain. Within the short life of the Aquadrome as we appear it has, we urgently need a new swimming pool and, yes, I would support the Villa site for this. But a water
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1617 centre I find too ambitious. If the minister could prove a potential increase of vast numbers of families with small children visiting the Island it would merit consideration. Blackpool, the Derby Baths — there the local authority have got a very good baths provided by the local for swimming, but the add-on facility, the leisure facility, is in fact franchised and you have to pay extra for going into that. Water centres of the kind proposed are already proving in some areas a very expensive burden — a very nice amenity but a very costly one. It is fortuitous that yesterday the Good Housekeeping magazine for July carries an article and it is the Good Housing Family Matters, and it is headed, very appropriately, 'In At The Deep End'. 'The pool — it talks about the mother and it is written on a family point of view, is sat there and saying "Swim, I want you to swim, taunt the little ones", but that was the snag. This was a leisure pool, the tiny deep area just adequate for floating in the waves. But even if there is a grown-up pool for proper swimming, you cannot leave the weenies unattended. "You could mistake it for paradise", the woman says. I do sometimes dream of a perfect pool, crystal clear, spaces bristling with lifeguards, much quieter' — and forgive me, Mr. Corrin, 'much quieter with a bit of Handel or something baroque playing gently in the background and tea served to harrassed mothers behind a see-through screen.' (Interruption) We need a good swimming pool and I trust that action can be started and progressed on this front quickly. We need it for the people of the Isle of Man and for tourists. We will be able to restart national and international events. The lack of a guarantee of a proper swimming pool unfortunately prevented the European Special Olympics coming here in 1990, but I must say that the Minister of Tourism and the Chief Minister did try in this direction to help. We need a swimming pool, but the add-ons, if we need it — we should get the private sector to promote this. A running track, I think, we need. The past administration dismissed this when the proposal came from Noel Cringle for a £3,000 investment in this area. I think most people regret that the decision was made at that time and I would strongly urge that we do not delay any longer and get on with this. But — and I would say that we dont want to delay it while we debate the rather ambitious recommendations in the Pickering Torkildsen Report. A total capital investment by Government of £20 million coupled — I stress coupled — with operation involvement as proposed is too much. I trust that the item 6(3) does not indicate a large page management structure for sport run by a Government department. We have got some excellent voluntary support organisations throughout the Island. They need support and help and we should use these various expertise. Let us not discourage but encourage private investment and support, not more Government operational, and now it would appear total financial support. Your Excellency, I support the receiving of the report. It has some very good points and it has a good framework, but I equally support and second the amendment by the hon. member for West Douglas. The Governor: The hon. Court stands adjourned until half-past two. First to speak, the Member for Douglas South, Mr. Duggan. The Court adjourned at 12.57 p.m. SPORTS REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT — DEBATE CONTINUED The Governor: I call on the hon. member of Douglas South.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1618 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
Mr. Duggan: Thank you, Your Excellency. The main part of the report I do support, but I think Douglas is the capital, it is the main holiday resort on the Island and I think, Your Excellency, the facilities must be at hand both for the locals and the visitors, as we certainly have the biggest population of the Island with twenty- plus thousand people. Another point, Your Excellency, I feel strongly about why it should be in Douglas: Douglas, sir, at the end of the day will have to pay the biggest part of the costs, which is relevant. The sports centre, I feel, should be central also, Your Excellency, near where there is adequate parking, which we have at the Bowl, and near a bus service; also there is a good service there at the Bowl. Mr. Bell did mention regarding security and vandalism and I would like to assure the Court, Your Excellency, that there is very little incidence of vandalism in my constituency. (Interruptions and laughter) Anyway, Your Excellency, the point about the Villa Marina being the Aqua Centre, I have always supported this, sir. I think it is the ideal site. The Local Government Board, as it was called at the time, we went to Rhyl and Blackpool and we found that these leisure pools were ideal and that is what the holidaymaker and also the local person did want. As a matter of fact I did try one of the water shoots, much to my detriment as I am a non-swimmer and there was about an eight- foot tank at the bottom but we will not go into detail there. (Laughter) But I did have another go and I think it is what the people do really want, Your Excellency. Also I think the indoor sports complex at Derby Castle, I think that would be an ideal future use for that complex. So basically overall, barring the siting of the sports centre, I would support the moves. However, Your Excellency, I do have an amendment to put before the Court which states that I request the Department of Tourism and Transport to site the national sports centre at King George V Park Douglas. I beg to move that, sir: Thank you.
At the end add - (4) requests the Department of Tourism and Transport to site the National Sports Centre at King George V Park, Douglas.
Mr. Quirk: I really want in the first place, Your Excellency, to emphasise that what we are talking about is really a communal exercise; it is not something that is for Douglas just alone, it is something that is for the whole of the Isle of Man, and that is why I find it very easy to support the amendment which has been proposed by the member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, and I think that the evidence is coming up fairly strongly now that this really does need researching once more. That is all the resolution asks for, is that this should be put back into the pool and be considered with the rest, and there are very, very strong reasons why this should be looked at really. It has been mentioned in the first place that it is taking away, if you have it at Noble's Park, the green belt, the very best part of Douglas. That has been mentioned. It has also been mentioned that King George V park is not suitable in a way for this particular exercise and, really, when you fit those patterns together and I can say that in Noble's Park, for instance, you have there a situation which would not
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1619 really lend itself to a sports centre of this particular size because it is one of the beauty spots of the Isle of Man and it is one of the places of recreation which the Douglas people must have, they must have that and it cannot be taken away from them. I think that will be probably be more or less the consensus of the whole Court and I am sure that the hon. minister will take cognisance of that remark. Now the other pbint too as far as King George V Park is concerned, I believe that here you cannot put in the facilities, and there are other arguments against this sort of exercise: firstly, that you have pollution in that area. Emissions come from the electricity station and 1 know myself that the cricket club and the other people who work in that area have to clean their cars, well, once a week, some people clean them more, but they have to clean them down there because of the emissions that take place there and when you have actually played on these areas you really realise just what that pollution means. It is not a place where it can get the best out of athletes, and again, when I talk about pollution, I am also talking about a sewage situation and it is absolutely ironic that in the present time we are trying to create two huge complexes which will pour more raw sewage into the sea and really take away the prospects of having our beaches clear for that particular purpose. As far as St. John's is concerned, may I put that case very clearly as well, that here we have an area which is Government-owned; it is an area of something like 15, 16 acres which can very well be developed and in fact I think the Treasury have themselves,brought forward the idea that this will now be phased in. So I would suggest that a complex of this nature will not be even started in two years' time, but here in St. John's is an area which you can start immediately, and at the present time we as a tourist area are turning away visitors because we have not sufficient pitches and facilities to accommodate them. I know for a fact we have turned away many hockey clubs for that very reason, that they cannot have the pitches to accommodate them in that particular area, and if you are using King George V Park you are not increasing your facilities you are decreasing them and making the situation even worse than it was before. So I do plead that case as well. I would hope that with St. John's — and I am not talking about a wonderful complex; whether we get a wonderful complex comprising of various sports or not I do not know, that is something that will be discussed — but I do know that St. John's at this present time, and we can take Tynwald Day — there are no toilets in the area, there is no area to change. There are toilet areas but not to accommodate the crowd that gets on Tynwald Day, and this is a facility which could very well blend in with what is needed at St. John's on this particular occasion. So that is another point, I think, in favour of putting up these buildings which will accommodate not only the tourist industry but also the occasion when we have these crowds at St. John's as well. I do hope, Mr. Minister, that you will take these points on, and I am sure you will, and look at this situation once more. As far as the other comments which were made by the committee, I do feel that I can accept most of these in principle. I accept, of course, that Douglas must have a facility which will be in keeping with what is demanded on present-day tourism and that is the water centre. Now whether this turns out to be viable, economic or not I do not know, but something must be done for Douglas, but I do not believe that Douglas is the place for a sports complex. As far as travelling is concerned, and the point has been made, travelling is one of the reasons why this has been, not thrown out but it has not been considered
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued 11620 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 by the committee as a feasible exercise. Travelling today, everybody travels today. The children of today, I know that the kids in my area, they think nothing of going to Ramsey or somewhere else if there is some effort on and I am sure that can be one of the points that can be very well used as a point in favour of St. John's. If I could go on just for one moment to item 6) in the observations of the committee and that is to develop a strategy for countryside recreation including countryside interpretation et cetera et cetera. Now this to me is important and in this particular case it is a case of the decision overtaking events. This is already taking place and I hope that the minister will look at this and develop it. It has been taking place in Peel where a group of people have arranged routes, they have arranged accommodation round about the Island, and this is a good start and that is a basis on which we should travel once more. I do not see any mention of the agricultural influence in tourism today and I believe this is one of the important points that we should bear in mind and I would like the Minister of Tourism to liaise with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in order to develop some strategy which will include an agricultural basis, and I do not mean that you take over Knockaloe as a sort of holiday-run farm but it may be something in that particular area that could be very, very useful indeed for the tourist industry. So I will leave you with those thoughts. Finally, just may I say that in item 5 on the second page in the 'Management of Sport' and it is just to debate and adopt policy aims for leisure and a strategy leading to the achievement of an Isle of Man "Standard of Provision" of facilities for the community..., and here again you mention the community and 1 am sure, Your Excellency, that, like most of the members, I agree in principle with what is being done and I hope that the wherewithal will be arranged so they can start on this as soon as possible. Thank you, Your Excellency.
Mrs. Delaney: I think before I start, Your Excellency, I should refute the comments made by my hon. colleague Mr. Corrin that the hon. member for the Local Department went down to the Channel Islands to spy. I can assure the hon. House he was there as my guest as a spouse. (Laughter and interruptions) That could be said also, Mr. President.
Mr. Delaney: Jersey romantic nights!
Mr. Kermode: Spying on the wife!
Mrs. Delaney: So perhaps I brought him to keep an eye on him. (Laughter) We will depart from the levity and deal with the serious matter in front of us. The green field site for the proposed sports I am absolutely opposed to. The minister spoke of leisure development and surely in leisure development we should be expanding not contracting and to take away a green field site that is already there for leisure and in a built-up area, as indeed Douglas is, I think it is absolutely vital and essential that it is retained and I would heartily endorse every last signature on that petition in order to achieve that aim, and I would hope that cognisance will be taken of this very much and I get the feeling it is being taken within this hon. House. The minister also spoke of community facilities Island-wide and I would turn
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1621 that around and ask him, again endorsing the situation of the membership living around that park, what about consideration for the community in which it is being placed? After all I think that people are far more important than the bricks and mortar and I think because of that we have to be extremely careful, and I have to say at this point I believe it was rather arrogant of the ministry and indeed the professionals who came out with the report to name an area without first seeking advice from the local representatives of the town indeed or indeed to ask the people themselves, arrogant in the extreme I would say, and in very bad taste if they would wish it to succeed, and that is the only comment I will make on the green field site, but I am happy with the feeling that is coming through on the Court today. I now deal with the case of priorities again and it has been dealt with at some length before when we have spoken on major issues but again I think it has to be reiterated, where are our priorities? We are talking in terms of a major investment and I am not questioning the need for it but I am questioning the priority. We have a Government policy, a current Government policy, of increased population within the Island and it is successful and I am very pleased it is, but incumbent upon this Government because of the increase surely must be to get the environment right for those people coming here, and also to make sure that we have facilities to house our people that we are encouraging here and to sustain a proper programme for the people living within our Island currently, and this is where I come back to priorities. I think before we begin to embark on any of these projects, which are very laudable in the right order, we have to get the environment right, and we have heard in this hon. House time and again the need, the urgent need, the crying need, for housing. Now I think equally so the membership within this Court are fully aware that, although many areas have been identified for house building, we cannot build upon it because of the lack of sewerage amenities there and I would have thought that was a major priority, to get a programme, a five-year programme, with perhaps a couple of million on an annual basis to begin to get that right before we start embarking on sports facilities, and that too, may I remind you, has very much to do with the environment because we are now talking about pollution of the sea which is current but should not be so if we embark, hopefully, at the end of the day and I think the project would perhaps take 15 years, but I think that is a priority. I think the next priority is pollution again to do with the earth and the ground around us and we see pollution on a daily basis in our countryside with old cars and industrial waste, and I think again we have to look to disposing of that before we begin to think about bringing more cars, more people in, and also the domestic waste that will be brought in as an extra; indeed we are already at capacity on a local base. So I can think of three major areas that our Executive Government could well do with a rolling programme of hard, fast plans to expend a certain amount of, money on each of those areas in order to enhance our environment before we begin to embark on the sports angle. I am not saying we should ignore the sports angle. I too am in favour of a national sports facility, very much so, but I think in the right order of priority, and I know a race track has been mentioned and I would certainly think that would be a priority when it began. But I have to say we are not without sports facilities in the meantime, we are not bereft. We are not an Island that has absolutely nothing. I would remind this hon. Court that we have five
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1622 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 schools, secondary schools, with major expenditure in the last number of years to the tune of — and I can be corrected and, I am sure, will be corrected if I have got the figure wrong — of around a quarter of a million per school for the sports facilities within those schools. Now it has always been my contention that schools are part and parcel of a community and we have them dotted in the regional areas and I would suggest that perhaps we could look to maybe enhancing those a little and opening them for the community as a whole and 1 believe we must look after our community first and foremost, and I will speak later on the tourist industry as I see it, but I would think that we are here principally to make sure that our people, our sports people and our people in general, have the facilities and the leisure facilities that they are entitled to as a priority, because if our people are here and are funding all of these things I think due consideration has to be given to them, and I would suggest in my opinion that is the priority and I know tourism is an industry and certainly that has to be considered but that is how my priority lies. Sports and leisure and I now deal with the swimming pool at the Villa Marina and I would certainly endorse, as many have today, we should have a swimming pool in the Villa Marina, but I would question the need for such an extravaganza as has been on display. I think a swimming pool, a standard one, for the sports and indeed the leisure with little additives that would enhance, because I note from the Press, and I try to keep up to date, that Rhyl really is on a downturn, the Sandcastle is having a little of a problem, I understand, meeting with the expectancy that was given out when it was built, and I could well be wrong but I understand the Derby swimming baths at Blackpool are considering closing. So I would wonder how long would the extravaganza of the sports, the leisure water centres, carry on, but certainly a swimming pool, I think, is fundamental. I believe too, as the member for Rushen has said, Mr. Corrin, that I think there should be private funding as well as public. I think, in order to keep up the initiative and indeed the interest in it, if it is privately funded, that helps it a lot. It tends to be if it is Government-funded it is left very much to the Government to maintain and sustain an interest in it, and in saying that it should be financed privately, not only with private commerce but also to bring in the sports people who are absolutely marvellous at raising money for all sorts of things, and I think once we do get around to building our national sports facility that they could be approached for statistics and argument to prove the necessity for whatever they would wish and then on a pound to pound basis perhaps begin to furnish it, and I think that will hold the interest and indeed it will make sure that perhaps the momentum is kept going with regard to the usage, and hopefully the 52-week-a-year usage of whatever we put up. I now speak on the aspect of the tourist industry. I understand and recognise very fully that the tourist industry is a fundamental and integral part of our economy and that we must do a lot to begin to help it. But I would suggest and recommend, and particularly in view of yesterday's debate, that we should not start at sports facilities. I think we have to start at hotels and holiday accommodation, and I think I have little need to enlarge on that very much except to say that we certainly have not got it right with regard the hotels and I think that has to be a priority. I think there are a number of hotels that I can count on one hand that one would say would be graded for what is expected today from us for the tourists. So I think we start at that aspect of it.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1623
I know that we have to be looking toward it but perhaps an idea would be that we look again at the Summerland complex as an interim measure. I fully understand we have to have some sports facilities for our tourists. We already have and last year the Government has taken over the responsibility for Summerland. I know it looks a bit of a mess but, nonetheless, it was taken over with great enthusiasm last year for what was going to be done and what was perceived that could be done and perhaps as an interim measure, while we are getting the structure right on the major aspects, as I see, it before we can begin to ask one extra person to live on this Island with regard our environment, that we could refurbish that to some extent and to enhance even further the sporting facilities there, perhaps forget the leisure facility and dwell on the sporting facility, increase the parking facility there, and perhaps that would suffice the needs until such times as we get the priority right as to what aspect of our economy do we see as the major need or indeed what aspect on this Island do we see as the major priority? Do we start off by getting our environment correct by first making sure that our sewerage is acceptable? At the moment we hear many things about the breakdown in many areas, particularly densely populated. Do we need that to get the houses in order to encourage the new population which we have actively encouraged in? Is that a priority? The waste disposal — we must get rid of that — is that the second priority? Or are we going to say, although there is a programme of a five-year scale on this plan, there has been no such programme of any velocity on those items I have mentioned and I would like to see them as a priority before I would say 'Yes' to this sports centre. I think it essential but I do not think we are bereft of sports facilities, as I have mentioned before. We do have our schools on a regional basis and I think they should be opened up to the public, they are publicly owned, and, while they are for our youngsters, and much has been said about the youngsters, I do not think they are too badly deprived on a quarter of a million on each of the secondary schools. If it did not suffice perhaps even if they were opened for the younger people both from the primaries and in the 20s; perhaps we could be affording a facility there and expanding on it pro tem and Summerland for the visitor, if we were to refurbish that pro tem. But let us please get our priorities. Let us make sure that we have an environment pollution, not free, it can never be free, but at least a pleasant environment as well as our quality of life and then we will be able to add 'quality plus' to our adverts when we ask our people to come. Before I resume my seat, Your Excellency, I would ask that the motion be taken in three parts. Thank you.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I think that before us here we have really a major principle to determine. What we have is a report and that report, as far as I am concerned, lays out where we can go with regards to providing sports and leisure facilities for the Isle of Man for many years into the future. This, I believe, is a guide that we can work from and I think all we are being asked for today, apart from the second part of the resolution, is that we receive that report so the department can then take it on board and progress it over a period of time and that we then can get on with some of the jobs that we have been asked to do. I think what is unfortunate today is that in fact the argument has concentrated around two major items and the sites, and quite honestly, I do not believe we are
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1624 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 being asked to determine the sites and therefore that really is secondary to the debate we have before us today. We are being asked to receive the report. The recommendations within that report do not actually say a site, they project sites, but that is a matter for the Department of Tourism and Transport to come up with and come back to this hon. Court at a later date to make its case to say, 'That is the site'. Now I have to say Your Excellency, I have been quite surprised at how wound up some hon. members have been over the Noble's Park site. Quite honestly, if it is in the hands of a trust and they say 'We are not selling it' or 'You are not having it' or whatever, if they have any say over it at all —
Mr. Delaney: That is it. I am glad somebody has said it.
Mr. Brown: — that is the end of the story. If the owners of the land will not sell it for that use, that is the end of the story, unless this hon. Court through its department determines to go for compulsory purchase. So therefore at this moment in time I am not worried too much about the site. I will comment on the site, but I am not too worried as to the site for this debate because what matters is whether or not we as a Tynwald Court believe there is a need in the future, starting today, to plan towards the provision of adequate leisure and sports facilities in the Isle of Man. Now one main question is do we require an Aquadrome with indoor water centre? Because that is a fundamental part of the resolution. My answer to that is 'Yes'. What we have in the Isle of Man (1) for our own population and (2) as a tourist sector, if we are ever going to survive as one, quite honestly is diabolical. What we have is a disgrace. It was mentioned that the Derby baths in Blackpool have closed. Yes, it has. Why? Because they built a nice new centre that provides them with the leisure facilities we are talking about in this report. We are talking about leisure facilities for the enjoyment of our own population and for the future of tourism. We are talking in this report of long-term investments into the infrastructure of tourism. It is being said that we only need a swimming pool, a rectangular one, that is all you need. I would suggest, if you go to a swimming pool and look, that is not what you need because there are signs everywhere saying 'Don't jump in the pool, don't do this, don't do that'. A leisure pool is about doing those very things you are not allowed to do in a swimming pool. •
Mr. Kermode: And no canoodling!
Mr. Brown: So therefore, Your Excellency, we are talking about a different concept. What is important is that we provide a facility not only for the keen swimmer, and if we are honest about it and we are realistic about it, they are a minority. The majority of people who want to go to a pool go there to have a bit of fun, run around with the kids or whatever in a pool, go down slides or whatever. They are not wanting to swim backwards and forwards up and down the length of a pool, let us be honest about it. When Summerland and the Aquadrome was built, as I understand it, they built the swimming pool to hold events over here. It does not happen. Very rarely you
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1625
get major events of bringing clubs from across to the Isle of Man for swimming events, and., anyway, that is part of the consideration, not the ultimate consideration. We need to look ahead to what facilities are provided. We are talking about tourism and we are talking about our own population. I believe, Your Excellency, that we are getting all sorts of things thrown in here today. The most common one is about sewerage. I find that quite astounding when already it has been mentioned and the member who is a member of Treasury, who should know more than we know because he is on the Treasury and is getting all this information fed to him at estimate time presumably by departments telling him what they are hoping to do in the future, and we have a paper here circulated by the minister and if we look at last year's Pink Book and if we can remember the estimates from last year, it is quite clear and it was made clear in the Chief Minister's policy document that the infrastructure we are progressing to get sorted out. About £1/2 million this year is in the D.H.P.P. estimates for sewerage and drainage. (Interruption) Yes, but it is a start to sort it out. We are talking about this paper that the Minister for the Treasury passed round, under drainage: £3 million for 89/90, £6 million projected for 90/91 and £7 million for 91/92 — a total of £16 million. We are only talking — when we say 'only' but in context — we are only talking about spending on an Aqualeisure Centre in the very near future in next year £8 million. We are talking about another £2 million on a national sports centre — a total of £10 million. So we are spending more on the infrastructure, or projecting to spend more, purely on sewerage and drainage than we are talking about spending on leisure facilities and if you then look at the housing and you throw all the rest in it, leisure and Aqua Centres are way down the bottom of the list in real terms of money that the Government is spending in capital terms, and it is always, whether it is here or in the United Kingdom, sport is pushed down and down the list. Sport and leisure facilities are a very, very important factor for any population and if we do ignore that, then I would suggest that is at our own peril, but, more importantly, we have an added benefit because not only are these facilities of benefit to our own people, they can actually be of substantial benefit to a tourist industry, a failing tourist industry. So therefore it is very important that we keep this into context. Now I have asked myself, why have we got these amendments floating round at the moment? Because, quite honestly, if you look at the resolution, the only reason possibly for the amendments is to stop us investing in an Aqualeisure Centre, that is the only reason, because the Aqualeisure Centre is clearly determined as having £250,000 to start progressing down that road. Where it will be is not a matter at this stage for this Court; that is a matter for the department in consultation with whoever. It might be in Douglas, it might not. Where the site is is something we have got to determine. It could be on fields we do not even know about, if they cannot get Noble's Park or somewhere else. We are talking about the Villa Marina for that. The chances are that is where it will go. With regards to the major sports complex, Your Excellency, I see that as some time off, and, quite honestly, whether we like it or not — and I quite like the idea, I have to say, of a major sports complex being at St. John's — but whether we like it or not we as a Government have to take into account whether or not we should provide that facility near (1) our major population source, (2) near our major tourist accommodation source and, if we do not do that, then we will have to realise the
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1626 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 consequences of the provision of transport to transport people in large numbers from one side of the Island to the other when you have got tourist events on which, I know from my experience on the Tourist Department, costs a lot of money. We used to provide, and they still do for the hockey festival, we used to provide transporting people all round the Island for the hockey event. A substantial amount of the vote for putting on the hockey festival was the provision of transport, a substantial amount, and if you really think you can say to somebody, 'Well, come to the Isle of Man for a sporting event but you will have to pay your own transport', you really are into something that you are not going to get anywhere. There is no doubt, Your Excellency, that what we are being asked for is the principle of accepting this report. The second stage, which I hope hon. members will really support, is actually progressing towards getting an Aqua Centre, which, quite honestly, we needed five years ago. We are talking about, I suppose — and maybe the minister will answer this — a year getting plans and things sorted out, identifying a site, because we know even the Villa Marina may have its own problems. So I think it is important to say with the Aqualeisure centre, 'We need to get on with that' and in line with that will be other facilities. I do not believe we are doing one thing at the ignorance of the other. I believe if you look at the Pink Book, if you look at what is down on that paper, which I would underline are only estimates anyway, if you look at the paper the Treasury Minister circulated, you can see in fact that areas are identified for investment over a period of three years and I believe that we should go along this line of providing this. If we do not take it seriously, if we shelve — because that is one of the points that is basically made — if we shelve this report, then we will never see proper sporting facilities on the Isle of Man and I think that would be a very sad day.
Mr. Quine: Your Excellency, I think we can all readily recognise the importance of the tourist industry to our economy; that is straightforward. You only have to look at its contribution to the gross domestic product and the sense that it represents in terms of retail sales and the jobs and so on; it is quite easy to see how important it is to our economy. But at the same time of course I think we should also recognise that this cannot be open-ended, we cannot continue to pour more and more money into tourism, and there must, in one way or another, in cash or kind be some return for what we put into the industry. So I think, starting from that premise, we can identify a number of what I feel, anyway, are important questions. We must ask ourselves what is the prospect for sustaining or expanding the industry and, in the case of expansion, in which area? We cannot ignore the fact that there is already some £10 million being put into the industry each year. Even if a case, Your Excellency, could be made out for further investment in the industry the extent of that support, if any, must be weighed against the competing demands, and that point has been made here several times today, and it must be weighed in the context of capital expenditure and the on-going revenue expenditure because, quite clearly, capital expenditure here is only one part of the whole picture. This presents, to my mind, an immediate problem for at best we have an incomplete picture of Government's own projected expenditure over the next three to five years. We have this list in front of us here but that does not indicate any order of priorities, and of course, more importantly perhaps in regard to these particular items which are inherent in this resolution, the matter of departmental
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued
TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1627
priorities. Perhaps the starting point, Your Excellency, is to look at the University of Surrey report, albeit there is not a great deal in that report to hang one's hat on as regards the future of the industry. It contains not a great deal that offers real hope for rejuvenation of tourism as presently structured. Of course there are generalisations and marketing strategies, and of course that in turn has implications for staffing requests for more staff, but that particular line has something of a hollow ring. But, in essence, I do not find a great deal of hope, a great deal of encouragement, from this report from the University of Surrey. The report, it does reiterate, because, after all, I think most of the matters there we are quite well aware of, it does reiterate our advantages and our disadvantages and it underlines the real obstacle in a way to strenghthen the industry and that is our isolationism, our isolated position, and the cost and the inconvenience of getting here, and after yesterday's debate I do not think we have advanced our case very much in that respect; those problems are still with us and, I fear will remain with us. It speaks of course of package holidays and clearly that is an area which has seen some expansion, but even in regard to package holidays we have these obvious inbuilt disincentives, and that is only being realistic. There is no point taking a rosy picture when there is no picture to be read. To take a more positive view perhaps we could look to the report where it points to areas for potential expansion and it does identify some areas for potential expansion which are quite interesting of course. It points to second or short holidays; it points to so-called 'target segments', overseas visitors and business travel. They are the main areas where it puts a finger on those areas and says, 'There is potential here for some development'. However, when you look at the visitor profiles which are attached to those particular areas, such a provision as the water leisure centre does not have a direct relevance because we are in some cases talking of people in the 55-plus bracket; we are talking of profiles in other cases of the 45-plus bracket, and, with the exception of perhaps of Mr. Duggan, most of these people would not be able to go down the water slide. So there are three groups identified there of young people, you might say — the 14-year-olds up to 16 and so on, and the 16 to 25-year-olds — for sport, but if you look at the profiles in regard to those segments which have been identified as having potential for expansion there is not a great deal of strength in that for sustaining the concept of a water leisure centre.' Of course and very importantly there is the local market, and indeed this element perhaps has greater relevance or offers in a way greater support for one or both of these major items identified here than does the tourist industry, the tourist ek prospect. Certainly when it comes to the need for a national swimming pool, should we say, I think it is identified here as a 25-metre pool, and when it comes to the matter of a stadium or a running track, those basic facilities, I think you can certainly point to the local market there and find some reassurance that there is a case. ▪ But the secondary facilities which in this report are attached to the proposed development of the swimming pool and the other development at the Villa Marina, to the stadium wherever it may be, those complementary facilities, really I do not think we can look towards the local market for sustaining those secondary and very expensive facilities. Perhaps a more lean and practical proposition, a more lean
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1628 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 and practical assessment of our needs, leaning more heavily on the local market could have had a better run before this hon. Court. As something of an aside the report states that the consultants have considered the road network in the matter of public transportation in regard to the use of these facilities by local people, and what it does not mention, of course, is that public transport is so limited as regards local people, particularly people out of town, that they would be seriously handicapped in using these facilities. They are seriously handicapped now in regard to the facilities which exist in Summerland, such as they are, and they would be no better off having these facilities, these additional facilities here in Douglas, great as they may be, if we cannot get our own people from out of town in to use these facilities. So I feel that that is an important part that should have been grasped, I think, a little bit more meaningfully and perhaps a greater thought given to whether we are going to subsidise or in some way help the people out of town to use these facilities. After all, if we are talking of ploughing £20 million into these sort of facilities we should not be too concerned about a hundred thousand or so to help our own people out of town use them. The bottom line, Your Excellency, surely is, what justification is there for further capital expenditure in the tourist industry to the tune of £20 million-plus? Because that is what we are talking of, over whatever span of time you wish, and let us not forget of course we have, as I said, revenue expenditure that goes along with that and we have to piece that into the overall Government picture and that really gives quite a frightening perspective. We have the figures which the Minister for the Treasury has produced today which are quite helpful but it shows there that we have £100 million on this sheet of paper here going to be costing us something in the order of £13 million to service. We have £100 million already with £30 million servicing that; we have got £100 million coming up here which is going to be in the order of another £15 million; we are talking of £28 million, £30 million, to service these capital projects, and that is the real question. Can we, no matter how justifiable, no matter how well-founded these proposals are, can we, on the strength of our economy, afford that sort of expenditure? Because that is the bottom line. It is our ability to meet that expenditure. Now the Minister of the Treasury of course has given his blessing to this expenditure; or appears to have done, and I suppose we are expected to —
Mr. Cannan: In principle only.
Mr. Quine: — we are expected to find some comfort out of that, to take some comfort out of that. (Mr. Brown: Hear, hear.) But when I heard him speaking this morning I had to look twice. I thought we had an imposter sitting here. It is a question of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. (Laughter) For the past 18 months he has been telling us that we cannot afford anything —
Mrs. Hannan: That is right.
Mr. Quine: — not for the old age pensioners, not for the children, although today he is a man for youth.(Laughter) We cannot afford anything.
Mr. Delaney: Well said!
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1629
Mr. Quine: We cannot afford these things. But today all of a sudden, this money is there, it is available; in principle or otherwise money is there. (Interruption) All I can say is that if this is a case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde then long may he take the medicine. (Laughter)
Mr. Kermode: Give him some of his own!
Mr. Quine: I feel that the questions which I have raised, and I feel they are important questions, I feel they remain unanswered and I cannot really find any comfort or any answers of substance in the Universiy of Surrey report, as I have said before. Indeed that very report makes the point, the very important point, that there must be a development plan for the tourist industry and with respect, hon. members, that is what, if anything, we should be debating here today: the development plan for the tourist industry, where it is going and what resources it needs in what order of priorities. It is as simple as that. We should not, with due respect, be taking this particular report, no matter how well motivated, no matter how well grounded it may be, in isolation saying, 'Yes, we will have these two projects'. That to my mind is not the way to do it at all. I am not trying to be obstructive, I am trying to be helpful. We should have before us, as the report from the Univesity of Surrey suggests, a development plan for tourism so we can see it in its entirety and we can judge the matter properly. As I said, I do not question the desirability but the real point really is, is it desirable or is it essential? Do we need them all or are some essential and others just desirable? It is all too easy to take a subjective and somewhat narrow view because it is an emotive issue, it is an issue providing these facilities, it is a popular issue, it is an issue on which you will get many pats on the back outside for, it is great, but it would not necessarily be responsible to judge those issues on what is before us here today. Far from what the Minister for Tourism has suggested, it is not the easy route to stand up and say, `No, do it properly, think again'. That is not the easy route. The easy route is to put your hand in your pocket and give them the money, that is the easy route, but it is not necessarily the responsible way to go forward. The raising of the future structure of the Tourism and Transport Department, and of course it is now proposed in certain. quarters to attach leisure to that, I think that unnecessarily complicates the issue because I am aware that there are hon. members who are unhappy with the present structure and the proposals for its proposed expansion. Suffice it, I think, to say that Government has recently received independent expert advice on the structure and staffing of departments, including that particular department and unless there are very sound reasons to the contrary we should follow it, unless of course we are once again to re-invent the wheel. Certainly any move to further centralise Government functions, the taking over of the swimming pools at Castletown and Ramsey, would not find favour with me, and more to the point would be certain decentralisation of Government functions, where the economics of the matter stand scrutiny, and also the moving of certain parts of the department, the commercial activities, out of the department altogether and, hopefully, into the private sector. I give credit to the Minister for Tourism and Transport and his colleagues for the energy and zeal which they have brought to bear in the short time they have been looking after this matter, (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.) and I think generally
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1630 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 within this hon. Court it is felt that they have brought considerable pressure to bear in trying to rejuvenate the industry. However, I am concerned at the prospect, on the basis of what is before us and the information that we have to hand, of vast expenditure on capital projects in the absence of any real batting order either in relation to Government's expenditure or the department's. I am also concerned at the manner in which Summerland has been left hanging in the air. Here we have an asset worth millions and it is simply left hanging in the air. It was suggested that we may be going to sell it, we may be going to keep it. I think the minister today suggested that we would certainly need to keep it until other facilities were provided, and that is manifestly sensible. (Interruption) But what is going to happen? What plans do we have for that? What are our final proposals for that? Because you cannot just approach it on that airy-fairy basis; we have got to have a positive position to take in regard to Summerland and its future, and to write off that valuable asset without any, as I feel anyway, thorough look as to how it could be rejuvenated and perhaps provide some of these facilities at a lesser cost, that to me is not a happy situation. Given the extent of support already being provided to the industry and important as it is, can further expenditure of the frightening proportions identified here be sustained? We come back to that question. To my mind we come back to that question, and, importantly, what likelihood is there of such expenditure materially changing present trends? If we put all this money into it, as far as the tourist aspect of it goes — let the local scene stand apart for the moment — but as far as tourism is concerned what likelihood is it that that would materially change the direction of our tourist trade? What return will there be for our money? In truth we will not know until a clearer picture of both Government's intentions in terms of capital expenditure and certainly in terms of policy for tourism and leisure and recreation are known and of course the department. The practical effect of this resolution before us, as far as I can see, is to commit Government to the building of an indoor water leisure centre at the Villa Marina at something in the order of £8 million. Now that has been played down here today. They have said, 'Oh no, we are not committing you to that at all; all we are asking you to do is to give us some petty cash to investigate it, give us quarter of a million to look into it, to investigate it'. Well I can just imagine the main project coming back here, the minister coming to seek funds for the water leisure centre in a year or two years' time, whatever it may be, and this Court goes to reject it because it finds it is not supported. I am sure that quarter of a million would be thrown back in our faces very quickly indeed as a waste of Government expenditure so it is not a simple matter of money for funding. That quarter of a million in practical terms, in political terms, is a commitment. Furthermore, as far as Clause 6 goes, that does not have the same impact perhaps but certainly it is tantamount to asking this hon. Court to give what is in that report its blessing, subject perhaps to further scrutiny, to further examination, but it is asking us to give those proposals our blessing, and personally I feel that I cannot do that. I have refrained from commenting on the matter of the location of these proposed facilities. As far as I am concerned the basic question is a matter of finance, a matter of Government's ability to pay, whether or not there is justification for putting this money into the industry. I am more concerned with those fundamental issues.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1631
At this point in time I do not think it is particularly helpful to dwell on the matter of 'If we have these facilities where do they go?' I think that is really quite incidental. I have certainly listened very carefully to the various submissions made and the concept put forward by the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, in regard to St. John's, that certainly should be included as one of the options for investigation, there is no question of that; in fact at the end of the day it might be the only option that we have, from what I am hearing here today. I feel that at this juncture we should do no more than to receive this report and call upon the department to produce a development plan for tourism for our consideration, and for this reason, Your Excellency, I can and will support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Cain, but I regret that I cannot support the substantive resolution before us. Thank you.
Mr. Luft: Your Excellency, few would deny the desirability of putting into operation these facilities so beautifully expressed in the report before the Court today, if, that is, we can afford them. There are, however, several matters of very serious concern arising out of the proposals and the first is whether we should commit the Treasury to finding the £14 to £20 million necessary for financing the two schemes, taking into account the prospective capital commitments we have in the next three years. On this I had hoped the Treasury would give us considerable guidance and in fact in the first place we have had distributed this morning from the Minister for the Treasury what I would call cold water on the scheme, Your Excellency, in the shape of an estimated £100 million required in the next three years. But, on the other hand, when he came to speak he thought we should pay the £1/4 million necessary for the preliminary expenses, and that, I note, is contrary to the view of the hon. member for West Douglas. But I take comfort from the fact that the Minister for the Treasury is able to assure us that we can pay these preliminary expenses. Now apart altogether from the question of finance there is the serious question to my mind as to whether the taking away of a very considerable area of the open space provided in the past by the citizen Henry Bloom Noble is justified or necessary or desirable. Now in order to provide a suitable facility for swimmers and a water leisure centre, that is, for the activities of tourists and residents, it is obvious that the promenade of Douglas is the only sensible place for such a facility, and I have been driven, Your Excellency, to the conclusion, despite my first reservations, that the Villa Marina grounds are the only grounds really available for this purpose and I think we have to face that and I think we do need to have this Aqualeisure Centre in place of the unfortunate place at the other end of the promenade at Derby Castle. In the past there have been pleasure grounds in Douglas that would have been suitable for this site. There were the Falcon Cliff site at the old ballroom and sports park. There was the Little Switzerland pleasure grounds where, 19 acres, they could have accommodated all these matters, but these are no longer readily available and I therefore must support the Villa Marina gardens despite my initial reluctance. Now whatever regret there may be for taking the major part, in my view, of the usable part of the Villa Marina gardens for the purposes of the water centre, if they are to do that, then that is all the more reason why we must leave untouched the Noble's Park. Those are the two main areas in Douglas of open space for the recreation generally for citizens of whatever age, whether they are swimmers or not
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1632 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 swimmers, runners or not runners. Of course the partnership very properly employed in my view by the ministry and of undoubted repute, experts, I accept all that the minister says about their capacity, they have said in their opinion Noble's Park is the only site or the optimum site for the siting of the running tracks and so on for the athletic site. Experts advise but it is for this Court to come to the conclusion whether Noble's Park is to be the venue for the sports centre proposed. The hon. minister for the Treasury has rather forestalled me because he had evidently seen to the saying that was reported in a newspaper on Saturday, Your Excellency. (Laughter) The Marquis of Salisbury, I want to quote it nevertheless, although I have been forestalled, because he did not quote it fully, Your Excellency. (Laughter)
Mr. Brown: Was this in The Sun? (Laughter)
Mr. Luft: It was in The Daily Telegraph if you must know. The Marquis of Salisbury wrote in 1877 that experts should never be trusted and that their strong wine should be diluted with a very large admixture of insipid common sense. Can we imagine, Your Excellency, the cities, towns and watering places in England giving up a substantial part of their open public parks to provide running tracks and so on? I cannot conceive of this being possible. In Douglas there are few open spaces and there is only one park properly so called and that is Noble's Park. In a town I lived in in Cheshire for some years — many years ago this was, that population, I suppose, would be about 30,000 people — there were three substantial public parks and I do not suppose for one moment the local urban district council would have dreamt of building on any one of those parks. We shall be told that it is not the whole space of Noble's that is being occupied. That is true, but it is the best area of Noble's Park that is proposed to be taken over for these pitches, running tracks and so on, and, there again, they are used today for cricket pitches, hockey and football pitches, they have a use in leisure at the moment, and I think the area proposed is the most level in the whole of the park. The majority of the people will not wish, in my view, to have this long-established grass area taken from public use to the proposed extent in this scheme by the erection of very considerable works and buildings and, unlike the hon. member for West Douglas, I do not question Noble's Park, I utterly oppose, Your Excellency, the use of Noble's Park for any part of this leisure centre. The question therefore must be asked, is there an alternative site? Because if this is the only one possible site, then there might be strong reasons for having it. Now I attended the presentation by the partnership at the Postgraduate Medical Centre and I am not satisfied that they had all the facts before them of the King George V Park, I am not satisfied that the King George V Park would not make an admirable site for the athletic centre, and indeed I think there was support for that from those partners themselves, but they added as a rider, 'Ah, but Noble's Park has far better accessibility and it is in a different area of population'. It is, in other words, near to the College of Further Education, it is near to St. Ninian's High School. But it does seem to me — that they did not appreciate the full extent
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1633
of the land which was available in that area and they were not fully aware of who owned that land and how available it was because a lot of it is in the ownership, I understand, of the Douglas Corporation. What they do assert in their opinion is that Noble's Park is a much superior venue from the point of view of accessibility and being in reach of these places. But the slight differences in the site cannot to my mind outweigh the inconvenience and the destruction and loss for ever of the grass, areas of Noble's Park. It is for this Court, Your Excellency, to decide therefore with their own local knowledge and experience and I trust that when they consider the merits of this matter they will remember to dilute the strong wine of the report with a large admixture of their own good common sense and reject Noble's Park as the venue by voting against the third resolution as it stands or, alternatively, in favour of Mr. Duggan's resolution which I am not sure, Your Excellency, whether it has been seconded. May I second that amendment, Your Excellency.
Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, I believe the question of Noble's Park is one in the first place for Douglas Corporation. However, when the debate started this morning I was sorry to hear the references to the use of Noble's Park and the very high feelings that were aroused; it was perfectly proper of course because it is mentioned as a possible site in the report, but I did not want hon. members to be influenced too much in relation to the other items on the Agenda, that is, the Villa Marina and so on. On the other hand I think there might be some merit in talking about Noble's Park in as much that it may divert people's minds from the enormous expense involved in the whole proposal. But I think we ought to remember that we can still vote for everything put forward by the hon. minister this afternoon without subscribing to the use of Noble's Park. This, Your Excellency, is not the first report we have had on facilities for sport in the Isle of Man but it certainly is by far the most comprehensive. A very, very long time ago a man responsible for facilities in the United Kingdom Amateur Athletic Association came here and several local bodies talked to him about the provision of a running track and it was eventually suggested by him after he had been round the Island that the ideal place was the Bowl at Douglas. This was put to the Douglas Corporation, it was to be a cinder track costing £3,000 but it was discovered to get the right size of track it would cost an enormous amount of money in altering the shape of the Bowl. But this person said it is important that you have the track in areas of maximum population and particularly, if you can, near schools so that it gets the absolute maximum use. Now after that certain people came much later from the United Kingdom Sports Council and they said that the ideal place was King George V Park. Now I believe • they said King George V Park because it was made clear to them at the time there was no possibility of ever using Noble's Park. I think honestly if they were asked for their professional opinion they would now say Noble's Park, but there we are. But they all agreed, Your Excellency, on one thing, and that was the most • important consideration in having a running track was to have it where it would get the maximum use and, as I said, that means in places of high population, certainly by Manx standards, and near the schools, and also they pointed out that it must be in a position where people would see it and see it used and perhaps say, 'Well I think I will use that,' and therefore, Your Excellency, I could not possibly support
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1634 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 the amendment suggesting that it be sited at St. John's. I must confess, I must say, sir, that if we are thinking of maximum use, if we are thinking of impulse use, as we talk about impulse buying in the retail trade, I cannot imagine many businesses depending on the public would site themselves at the old railway station in St. John's. But, then, I must confess the Sports Council at one time were so desperate to get their first priority, the running track, that we thought of the school at Onchan that was never built, the one referred to by the Minister of the Treasury today; we thought it would be a great idea to have it there but we were thinking then of saving a lot of money on maintenance and hoping the Department of Education would maintain it. But we were even more desperate because finally we looked at a flat field next to Queen Elizabeth school in Peel. We rejected that because I gather it gets flooded frequently. That would have been an enormous mistake, to have a running track so far away from the main centres of population but 1 must say in this case, though I do not believe in a running track at St. John's or at Peel, I certainly believe in something else which is in this report and that is an indoor swimming pool for the west of the Island in Peel which I think is most desirable. Now, sir, I am glad His Honour agrees with the use of the Villa Marina grounds because for many years there have been a lot of people who have opposed it and I am not really interested in the past in this Court and if I refer to it it is because I think we have learnt a lesson from that particular event. In 1958 I put a proposal to this Court firstly for a modern indoor swimming pool in Douglas and, secondly, that it be sited in the Villa Marina grounds. At the time Douglas Corporation were in favour of siting a modern pool in the Villa Marina grounds. On the other hand I found that the Lieutenant-Governor of the day presiding in Tynwald regarded this as a personal challenge to him by me because he had expressed an opinion that there should not be a swimming pool in the Villa Marina grounds and he arranged for both Deemsters and the Attorney-General, speaking in the Governor's name, to attack me quite hard. Indeed the Governor said to me, 'I must warn you, Mr. Irving, if your resolution fails today it will fail for ever.'
The Speaker: Those were the days! (Laughter)
Mr. Irving: He was there! I said, 'I am obliged, Your Excellency, for your guidance but I intend to proceed.' I did proceed and it was agreed that there should be a modern indoor swimming pool in Douglas but not in the Villa grounds. Now I tell that story partly because it gives me great satisfaction to be sitting up here today with a different Governor, if I may say so, Attorney-General and no Deemsters and with the knowledge that this is going to go through this time. Now I later did not like the idea of a modern swimming pool at the end of Douglas promenade because I thought it was commercial nonsense to put a swimming pool so far away from the centre of tourist activity in Douglas, indeed in the Isle of Man, where, as I have said about the track, one misses the impulse use of the pool and one misses people seeing it and being able to get at it easily, but, there we are, sir, we were landed with the Aquadrome, and I think we must remember now, in the case of the Villa Marina and in the case of the running track, that it is important to have it sited in the right place.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1635
Now, as I said, our first priority on the Sports Council, and the Sports Council was formed of a dozen people representing various sporting activities on the Island, all agreed on this running track. The second priority was indoor facilities. Now Summerland came along and I must say, Your Excellency, how grateful a lot of people must be to the Board of Education for providing in so many different places in the Island these splendid indoor facilities. I believe, sir, that the policy of the Tourist Board nowadays — and I would never criticise the Tourist Board after my poor efforts for so many years — the policy of the Tourist Board nowadays, I believe, is to appeal to people as an Island for activities and events, and of course both a track and a pool fit in with that policy, and, you know, when one thinks that Douglas Corporation is supposed to have 11,000 deckchairs when all the potential users are sitting in the sun on the Mediterranean we must wonder, are we providing the right facilities for the people we are setting out to attract now? And to my mind these are the right facilities. We must provide activity facilities and that to me means doing what the hon. member is putting forward today. Now, if I may look back for one more moment, in 1956 there was a report of the Tourist Industry Commission and one of their main proposals was that the Isle of Man should be an Island of sport. This was put to Tynwald and passed unanimously 32 years ago. Is it not time, Your Excellency, that we started making it an Island of sport? And I would compliment the Department of Tourism and the Sports Council for the wonderful proposals they have put forward to us today.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, I will try and be brief but if I was the Minister for Tourism I would feel like a clay pigeon today because everybody wants to shoot me down. I congratulate the Minister for Tourism, and that is unusual for me, but I do today —
Mr. Duggan: What has come over you?
Mr. Kermode: — because I feel — (Interruption and laughter)
Mr. Delaney: He wants the bouncer's job at the sports stadium! (Laughter)
Mr. Kermode: — I feel that at last he has done something constructive. I do not believe there will be many Canadian tourists using these facilities (Laughter) but I do believe it will be vital for the young sportsmen of the Isle of Man, and when I think back over the years and the many sports that I personally have been involved in and why I used to go off the Island and look at the facilities that other places provided for their young people I was somewhat ashamed that I had to go back to the Isle of Man, and it is no wonder we never produce any potential international sportsmen here because we have never had the facilities to train our young people to reach the standards that we should have. I have heard some very emotive comments here today about the siting of the sports centre at Noble's Park. Now I am only a layman and the Attorney-General can put me right if I am wrong but the procedure would be, we are only receiving this report today; they have still got to come back to us, no matter what happens at
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1636 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 the end of the day they have got to come back with their proposals at the end of the day. The Corporation have already publicly stated, many of the councillors, that they are not in favour of the sports centre going in Noble's Park. To acquire that site we would then have to go to compulsory purchase, the Minister for Tourism would have. That would have to come back to this hon. Court for that purpose and we would have another bite at the cherry to turn it down, and as far as the £1/4 million is concerned for the Aquadrome, we have already approved those monies, we have already approved them in our estimates at estimate time, to carry out this work to look into that situation, it has been done. I had a resolution in this hon. Court, Your Excellency, that the Minister of Tourism look into providing a leisure centre or a theme park for tourism for the Isle of Man. This is a step in the right direction, the facilities that the modern tourist wants, and not only for tourism, it also provides for our own people in the Isle of Man. At the end of the day we will still have a chance to say which scheme, which capital scheme, in all departments' estimates that we are going to support. It does not necessarily mean because we support this here today that that is going to be the priority. We will still have time to put the sewage in, being a member of that department, and the other things that have been talked about, the parking facility. We will then decide which are our priorities, they have still got to come back to us. All we are asked for today is to receive the report, to approve the expenditure on the Aquadrome for looking into providing that facility in that area and I think that this hon. Court should support it because it is needed. But do not be running away with this emotive vote-catching, people standing up and telling me — we have heard it on the radio — 'We do not want it at Noble's Park.' Just because you support this today does not mean to say it is going to go at Noble's Park and I do not think for one minute it will because I think if the Minister for Tourism has got any common sense about him at all he will realise what is coming from this hon. Court today and I do not think he will bring it back to us. But then I have heard two other comments in this hon. Court and one was by my colleague on the D.H.P.P., the hon. member for the Legislative Council, Mr. Barton, who says we should have private enterprise in here. Does he honestly believe, being a member of the Chamber of Commerce, sat with all those business people in the Isle of Man, that there is somebody, private enterprise, who will look into this and want to do something? They would have done it before now; they would have been in here if they thought there was a quick buck to be made. But not one messiah from the Chamber of Commerce has come forward and said, 'I will find you somebody in the private to do this Aquadrome and to do this sports centre.' It is a red herring, it is a nonsense just to have something to say in this hon. Court today and to waste our time with nonsense. So I say support this today and let the minister go away and do his homework, because do not give him the job of putting tourism on the map and then kicking him in the teeth because he comes along with some good suggestions, because otherwise he may as well go and sit in his office down there, receive his money and not bother. But he is trying to do a job, and I do not always agree with him but on this one I congratulate him because I think this is the right track to go down.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1637
Mr. Delaney: And I hope you will be very happy together! (Laughter)
Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I will be fairly brief but I hope that one or two of the points I have got to make will be heeded. I read the report with interest, as indeed did everybody else, I think, in this Court and outside, and although I did not and cannot accept altogether the recommendations contained therein, I do accept the need for a national sports centre and water leisure activities, but not at the proposed sites and certainly I cannot agree with the timetable which is saying in effect, 'Push it on straightaway as quickly as ever possible.' The minister in his opening remarks — it seems an awfully long time ago, Your Excellency — he talked about the consultants' proposals as being put forward as unprompted and independent in regard to sites and so on, but I wonder did they really examine all the sites that are or were available to them or were they nudged perhaps and told where the most desirable site would be and they settled on that as 'hint, hint,' if you like. Noble's Park site, and as has already been said in the Court this afternoon, sir, it is one of the few green sites left within Douglas and certainly I think should be retained, residents use it for leisure, whether it is kids kicking a ball round or cycling or simply used as a play area, or indeed it is an area for adults just to have somewhere to laze round in, just quietly relax. If this development were ever to take place at Noble's Park these people, the ordinary people, not the sports people but the people who live in the houses dotted round the area, they would be deprived of that amenity, and that would be a great pity, I think. A funny thing, Your Excellency, everybody says that a sports centre is a good thing: Put it in my backyard, it would be mighty handy.' Incinerator: 'A good thing but do not put it in my backyard,' (Laughter) and I wonder whether the consultants missed something from their recommendations and should they not have said to put the complex and the incinerator together where you have got all utilised, all that heat which is going to be available to heat swimming pools and other places in a sports centre, strike a bargain in effect: 'You can have the sports centre as long as you have the incinerator close by,' and that would kill two very controversial birds with the one stone, Your Excellency. To my mind St. John's would make the better site. There are many things to commend it and not least is the enthusiasm which is there among the local people to have the sports centre there and that counts for a lot. But, Your Excellency, when it comes to the main capital project we then have to judge and accept that while many things — and it is just as in life — while many things are desirable, certain things are essential and the proposals that we have encompassed in this report have to be categorised into either one or the other, one or the other slots. With the cost, £20 million or so, and that has got to be weighed against other requirements of other departments and indeed Island needs, essential needs in health, for example, where we have a fair-sized figure for theatre upgrading et cetera. There is the question of drainage and sewage. In certain areas, and indeed as has been rightly said this morning, no more development can take place in them until the systems are rectified. There is a great problem with sewage. In fact I am reminded of the person who was walking along the promenade in Douglas, walked the length of the promenade and he smelled that smell — and we all know what
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1638 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
that smell is, in one section of it — he was talking to people about it and he was cogitating, he said, 'Funny people, the Manx,' he said, 'they have got this problem on a certain part of the promenade in Douglas obviously caused by s.e.w.a.g.e. I pronounce it 'sewage' but they insist on pronouncing it 'seaweed.' So the problem is there, Your Excellency, in drainage and sewage. Housing — every member in this Court makes noises and expressions of regret that the first-time buyers are having such a problem in getting any property. Would it not be better to spend £10 million facing that problem and try and do something positive? Incineration, as I have mentioned, that is going to be there. The tip, we understand, has only another few years to go, a limited life, and we are going to talk then about millions for incineration. Industries, both traditional and new, they do require money spending on them and we cannot forget all these points: health, sewage, housing, incineration, industries new and old. What members do not altogether seem to appreciate at times, Your Excellency, is that Treasury does not have a bottomless pit or an inexhaustable crock of gold and that in fact we have got this memorandum from the minister which sets out the needs in capital requirements over the next few years, a tremendous figure. We have as yet no overall plan for priorities, such a plan is not yet in being, and I feel at times that it never will be in being because somehow or other executive Government cannot seem to get its act together in regard to capital requirements and some sort of priority overall those requirements; we have no real guidance in this Court as to, should it be (a), (b), (c) or (d), just whoever shouts the longest, hardest and loudest. In the report, Your Excellency, no mention, just in passing almost, about Summerland. This white elephant or rather, I suppose, one should say grey elephant over at the end of the promenade. Is the whole place to be left to rot or what? I think if you were, as Government, to offer it to a developer I do not know that he would take it for nothing, sir. It is a building which Government is going to be left with. I think we have got to realise that, we are going to be left with it, and no proposals whatsoever for it. Your Excellency, many questions, too many questions are unanswered really, but I feel that I can support the resolution before us because in the first part of it it is just receiving the report and the second part it is the approval of preliminary expenditure not exceeding quarter of a million, and the third part is purely requesting that the department have regard to other recommendations. I do, however, feel that the hon. member for Rushen's amendment as a part (4) to the main resolution is worthy of support because I do not feel that the experts really looked at all the possibilities Island-wide.
The Governor: I call on the member for Douglas North, Mr. May, followed by Mr. Delaney, followed by Mr. Karran, Mr. Walker, Mr. Kneale, Mr. Cretney and Mr. Speaker and Mrs. Hannan. (Laughter)
Mr. May: You would like me to be brief, Your Excellency.
Mr. Kermode: We all would like you to! (Laughter)
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 TI639
Mr. May: Your Excellency, when the hon. minister, my colleague Dr. Orme and myself were first appointed as a department some 18 months ago one of the first areas that we identified as being in urgent need of stimulation was the area of sport and leisure. It was an area in which we as an Island were sadly lacking, facilities were sadly lacking, not solely for the visitors to our shores but also for our own local home-based residents. At that time the Summerland complex was lying idle at the end of the promenade and it looked very much as if it would have continued to do so until two months later the department came before this Court with a recommendation to take over that complex and also with proposals for aqualeisure facilities on a site different to that which we are discussing this afternoon. This was the commitment that the department had to revitalising the tourist industry and also providing a vital part of the infrastructure of the Island for our own local residents. When we submitted that recommendation for the take-over of the Summerland complex, Your Excellency, I pointed out the short-term future related to the Aquadrome and the necessity that at some stage in the future we had to look at providing alternative facilities or we would be left in the unthinkable situation of being an Island holiday resort with no swimming facilities whatsoever and certainly to me, and at that time the impression I got from many members of this Court, that was a situation that nobody would like to see. So what has gone on from that, Your Excellency, following the hon. member for Rushen's resolution last March, the department appointed Pickering-Torkildsen to do this report that is before us this afternoon. They are the leading experts in the field and they were appointed, as the hon. member has said in his introductory remarks, with the specific intention of having a completely unbiased professional report laid before this Court with a view to looking at the overall needs of sport and leisure to take us through to the next century, and it appears, listening to some of the debate this afternoon, that the department, and I will be moving away from that department in a short time now, but I have been happy to be associated with the moves that have been taken to try and encourage the industry, to try and revitalise the tourist industry and to try and provide facilities for the local people. Now, ha■,ing said that, Your Excellency, last week there was a seminar held at the Postgraduate Medical Centre which I in company with others, because this report and the suggestion has been that perhaps Pickering-Torkildsen were edged in a certain direction. Well from my personal experience I had very little to do with Pickering- Torkildsen; they dealt with the people who matter and that is the sports people of this Island. They presented their presentation in relation to the new proposed Aqua Centre and also to the sporting facilities of the future, and personally I found it a very encouraging, I found it an exciting, forward-looking presentation that certainly offered hope not only the tourist industry but again, and I must stress, for our own young people, for future generations. For too long people in the Isle of Man have been denied facilities that everywhere else, even in little towns, they take as a right, and I found that encouraging. I do not agree with all of the report but basically it is a blueprint for the future. Now if I touch firstly on the Aqua Centre, Your Excellency, to me what is being asked for, and my hon. colleague Mr. Kermode has identified, is the permission to expend money that is already a column 3 item. We have heard vociferous opposition to this this afternoon which I did not hear at Budget time. I did not
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued T1640 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
hear certain hon. members getting up and challenging this item being included in the Pink Book. We are asking for permission to spend that to do the initial investigations into an Aqua Centre on the Villa Marina site. One of the biggest mistakes that the Island ever made, again as has been identified during the course of the debate, was in locating the Summerland complex at the far end of the promenade instead of on that site because that is the logical place. Now certain hon. members, Mr. Barton and Mr. Corrin, have said we do not need all the embellishments, we do not need the lazy river to go down and the fun areas, all we need is a basic pool. But basic pools are just a drain; they are not commercially viable in this day and age. Water activity is now based on fun activity and family involvement. That is what it is based on. What is proposed here is the basic pool for the traditional swimmer, is catered for. But it will not be that that will bring the major part of revenue into that centre; it will be the fun area and the outdoor heated lagoon where you can swim, so we were told, even when it is snowing. Now this is the type of concept. I have heard the Rhyl Sun Centre mentioned during the course of the debate and how the turnover in the Rhyl Sun Centre is possibly going down. Can I tell you, Your Excellency that the Rhyl Sun Centre was one of the sort of major projects that was undertaken by a local authority and they really stuck their neck on the line when they built that place because they built it borrowing out of their own mortgage funds to do it and it was paid for within five years. It became profitable because it was the right concept, it was operated on a correct basis and it was what the people wanted. It not only became a profitable operation but it turned Rhyl from being one of the graveyards of North Wales into being one of the key resorts in that area. Now that is the type of attraction that these types of pools are. I would not suggest that a leisure pool in the Isle of Man is going to mean significant upturns in our tourist arrival figures. I do not think anyone would suggest that. But what it will mean, Your Excellency, is that people who do come here, the people that do have faith in the Isle of Man as a holiday resort, will see that at long last we are prepared to take some commitment in the future, we are prepared to provide the facilities and amenities that they get in other resorts. One of the loudest cries that you hear from people who come to the Isle of Man on holiday is, 'There is nothing to do. What is there for my kids to do where I do not have to go on licensed premises?' This is the type of facility that will provide the answer to that problem or at least part of the answer to that problem. It is the type of facility which will attract our own local children and their parents in because these are the types of environment where adults can mingle with children quite happily and spend a full day there and fully enjoy it. Now what is being looked for in the second part of this resolution this afternoon is the authority to spend £250,000, already voted in the Pink Book, on preliminary investigations. I would say to this hon. Court we need as an Island, if we have faith in ourselves and we have faith in our own future and also the future generations of this Island, we need to take some steps to revitalise our leisure and amenities that are much needed in the Island. So I would say on that, I would implore hon. members to support the expenditure of that money because it will signify that at long last the Isle of Man is not prepared to let its competitors pass it by and some 40 years later wake up and wonder what has happened. We live in a commercial
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1641 world and if we do not react, then we go under. If we do not provide when the opportunity is there to provide, then we will not be thanked for it. Now going on, Your Excellency, to the second recommendation which is the further recommendations of the report, and here I think things have been taken out of context and I think hon. members ought to read recommendation 7) and read it word for word. It says, lay a synthetic track and separate floodlit synthetic pitch on a large, high profile site near Douglas with some spectator provision and either the national sports centre? There is no mention in that or no identification whatsoever of any site. Now I am opposed and I was disappointed when I saw Pickering-Torkildsen's first choice of preferred option site and I cannot support the Noble's Park aspect. I do feel that the second option would be far more viable. But I also feel that that decision is not the decision that we are taking here today, it is not the decision, that we are being asked to take here today. It is a decision, frankly, which is possibly being taken at this very moment at the Town Hall on our behalf.
Mr. Corrin: No, it is not.
Mr. May: It is. (Laughter) So I would say we are not here — and I have heard some emotive argument on site. I do not want to see green belts go and I believe that in King George V Park we not only encompass the sporting and athletic facilities, you also bring cycling into it as well because there is a cycle track around the perimeter of the park which only this weekend has had extensive use during the cycle week events. However, as I say, Your Excellency, I do not feel that this is the relevant issue at this point of time. When we need to discuss the site is ultimately when the department come back to this hon. Court with concrete proposals and when we need to discuss the financing of it. We have heard much about, 'Where is the money coming from? Can we afford it? But where does it fit into the priorities of Government?' We have to judge that when a positive proposal is laid before us. What we are being asked for this afternoon is a decision in principle that this Government is prepared to show its faith in sport, in the future of sport in the Isle of Man, the tourist aspect of sport, and do not forget the very many locally based sportsmen and sportswomen who for many, many years, for decades, have been denied even the most basic of facilities. The opportunity is there for us as a Government to redress that balance, to start putting things to right. There is nothing laid down in here that says it is going to happen next week or next month. What it lays down is a possible way ahead. It is up to the Department of Tourism and Transport in negotiation with the owners of the eventual chosen site, and for this reason I do not see any point in any amendments to the resolution because whatever amendment that may be accepted here may possibly be restrictive and prohibit moving to something else. I think that we should take the decision that in principle this Government favours providing the facilities that our sportsmen and women and our visiting sportsmen and women have a right and justification to look for. It is an opportunity for us as a Government to invest in the future and when you are investing in the future one of the best investments is in youth and this is an investment in youth and to me, sir, it is an investment in the future and I hope the Court will support the
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Continued
pT- - - 1642 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 principle of it.
Mr. Kermode: Was that a brief speech?
The Governor: Hon. members, before we break up for tea may I just trail across you some thoughts about our progress. We have eight more speeches on this item and then the reply. We do have the possibility, and I say only the possibility, of an emergency debate which you will have seen in the papers that have been put in front of you. We have 13 more items of which at least six can not be deferred until July because they have a commencement date which requires them to be moved in June. I know that some members hoped we might finish tonight 'at a gallop', but I do not see this particular horse galloping to the finishing line tonight at our present rate even though we resolved to work late, and therefore all I want to say to hon. members is, as we go to tea, can you consider the possibilities of next week. There are some problems that we have to have in mind, I think. First of all on Tuesday we have some Keys business to transact of course and a new member to be brought in, subject to the by-election, tomorrow, and the Speaker's Lunch, but there are some members who will be away. The following day, Wednesday, could be suitable but I know that there are some members presently planning not to be available. So may I just ask — I do not want a decision now — may I just ask that we think about these things over tea and when it comes to the end of business tonight we will have to make a decision. The Court stands adjourned.
The Court adjourned at 4.23 p.m.
SPORTS REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT — DEBATE CONCLUDED - MOTION CARRIED
The Governor: The member for Douglas East.
Mr. Delaney: Thank you, Your Excellency. As has been identified by a number of members, the first recommendation, as I understand it, is that Tynwald receives, so I do not think there is any point in repeating the head-banging championships that seem to be taking place in relation to where we are going to site this particular possible sports stadium if it does get during the life of this House and that is the matter that concerns me. I did say at the second meeting of the Court, if I remember correctly, I reminded members possibly that there was the period of euphoria after being elected when you come in and try to change everything in the first 12 months, then we get to the slack water period, and then we get to deciding that we are going back to the polls and we will all be panicking to try and do what we promised to do before the election on which we were put here. It seems that members are ahead of schedule: we have got to the slack water period fairly early, and to that end, Your Excellency, it gives me some concern, I am sure, because, as the hon. member for North Douglas has said, we inherited a problem, this House and this Court, and that was to close down Summerland. We attacked that problem and at the same time on that same
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1643
resolution we had the Aqua Centre on and we did say we were going to come back and that has been delayed now nearly a year, so we are a year behind schedule as far as that is concerned. I believe the object was to see something happen in our lifetime in relation to that and certainly the sports stadium because that was one of the big objectives, certainly at the hustings at the last election. I cannot think of any constituency that it was not raised or manifesto where it virtually was not mentioned, and I think it will be a great disappointment throughout the land if this House does what previous Houses have done and runs away from the issue of what we do, particularly when we find it very convenient every so often to even go as far as having reports on dry drinking centres et cetera for our young people when we all know, even those who are past the sports stage, well, certain sports anyhow, past the sports stage of doing something that was virtually promised to the electorate at the last election, and I hope that is not the case, Your Excellency. I hope that we achieve for the young people of the Isle of Man a sports stadium, wherever it goes. But, Your Excellency, I am going to support totally the resolution because the only substantial part in it that commits me to anything is the £250,000 which I am already tied to anyhow, and I find no objection to that whatsoever because I believe the Island does need it, and I disagree certainly with a number of speakers, including the member for North Douglas, Mrs. Delaney. I think that the idea (Laughter) that we can go on for ever —
Mr. Duggan: You will get no tea tonight! (Laughter)
Mr. Delaney: I am not going to anyhow by the way we are going to be here, we will be here till nine. The situation is that to think that we can go on building little rectangular swimming pools, and I was surprised at some members who want to see another one built. I am already on your behalf putting one back into operation in Ramsey. We have one of sorts in Douglas which is still going, we have one in Castletown, we have several hotel pools, and for a population of 70,000 people for nine months of the year I think we have got adequate facilities for going up and down the pool. What we need is somewhere for people to enjoy themselves who do not want to enter the Olympics and I think that is the concept we are trying to get across here: water leisure pleasure for the family, and that is the new concept. I am interested, Your Excellency, in the observations of a member who has moved an amendment, the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, and his observations. He covered everything except the Polaris missile in his statement to make sure he covered everything to catch something in a headline, but the fact of it is, Your Excellency, I think he wants to read Bernard Shaw hear one of his quotes, if I remember correctly also, which is that a politician who keeps claiming he has vision, usually the only thing he can see is a statue in the village square, and I think that is probably true, and the member for Castletown can help you out on that; they have got the Smelt monument with nothing on top of it. The fact of it is, sir, the vision is seeing what is going to be necessary 20 years ahead. That is as long as you can probably look in this game, and I honestly believe in 20 years time there will be new objectives for the people sitting here. But we have not even given the people what was necessary and should have been planned 20 years ago. Our people are denied, as has been said by Mr. May, the things that
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1644 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 people take for granted everywhere, not just in Britain or Rhyl; they take these things everywhere in Europe, in the western hemisphere, as being things that they are entitled to as part of the services to the community, and there is no entrepreneur who can make money at this moment in time out of water leisure as the whole concept; individual paying for the slides, yes, but not as the whole cost of putting up the unit, and it falls back on us with the public purse to do so and that is what I believe is going to happen with this £250,000. Initially that is the cost and then we get to the £8 million or £9 million which it will, unfortunately, cost. Your Excellency, that is the crux of this particular resolution and I want to see that go through to show that we have a commitment to what we said. The idea that the row which is emanating and certainly for political reasons, there was a meeting last night in the neighbouring constituency to mine and 200 people rightly turned up because they were not aware, they had been misled by certain statements, this will be debated, Your Excellency, as I understand, at least three times in this hon. Court, certainly twice after this, and it should not have been debated here. So that is the time for members to make up their mind. But I am convinced and I will say to this member of Tourism, even though I support this resolution and receive the report, I believe he is on a hiding to nothing. I am aware that Douglas Corporation have had a meeting this afternoon and part of the resolution which they have passed, two items which I think I should bring to the notice of the Court because they will be general news tonight. Item (4) on that resolution was, 'Accordingly, of the two sites in Douglas favoured by the report the Council reaffirms previous views that King George V Park is the best possible location for a centre, such views being strengthened by the criteria for assessment adopted in the report,' and (5) of that same resolution this afternoon: 'the Borough Engineer and Surveyor be authorised to prepare a layout for a possible development of a centre at King George V Park for submission and discussion with the Department of Tourism and Transport'. Now obviously, then, Douglas Corporation, to my knowledge, have said 'No'. Now they might only be a local authority, even though a large local authority on the Island, but they have the responsibility in certain respects for that park and if we cannot get their co-operation for the minister he is going to spend years having legal battles to get the site if he is determined to get it and therefore this House will never see this necessary sports stadium progressed. Is that what we want? I do not believe we do. I believe we want to see something go ahead. So I think we should immediately stop worrying about that site and start looking for what he can achieve. But there is one area, Your Excellency, in the report which has been put about and I want for the future to stop another row breaking out and I want this clear. We inherited the dreadful situation at Summerland. This House and this Court was good enough to give permission for us to go along and negotiate with the Corporation, and I with Mr..May negotiated on behalf of this Court and the Government to hand over Summerland to the Government — and now it will be the Tourism and Transport Department — that building on certain conditions. One condition was that Douglas Corporation kept on with the loan charges after handing the building over. If this report can be accepted as it is written I want an assurance from the minister, on behalf of the ratepayers of Douglas who gave this building over to the Government to keep it going, that if it is sold to anybody other than
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 11645
for the purpose it is used now the funds will be paid back to the Corporation to offset the loan charges which the ratepayers of this town have to carry on, sir. It would be totally unjust to have taken it over on a false premise. They gave it to us because we said we would keep it open and at that time we got it converted to a dry leisure centre. That is the commitment Mr. May and myself gave on your behalf. Now if we are going to do what this report says, should it come back to the Court, I want assurances for the people who we gave assurances to that the money that comes from that building, sir, will go back to the people who put it in, because part of those funds was the sale of the old Noble's baths — it is funny how Noble has been mentioned so many times so long after his demise — but some of the funds of the sale of that building also went to this, so that rightly belongs to areas of that trust. Your Excellency, I totally support this. I hope the Court will not commit themselves to sitting on the fence and try to pretend that all we have to do is keep finding objections or we do not like the location or we do not like this, we do not like that. If we mean what we say, Your Excellency, let the department get on with the Aqua Centre anyhow. They will have time and they will need a lot of money and have to come back to us to get the rest of the things in that report and then we can make the decision individually on all those items. But, Your Excellency, I do not think this is the time to throw it out, that piece of paper, because at the end of the day that is all it is, it is pieces of paper and some technical people's advice to us. It is certainly no tablets of stone and no bible as far as I am concerned; it is just a piece of paper with advice on, and let us have the truth of it. If nobody needs advice, politicians certainly do. Whether we accept the advice at the end of the day is our pleasure, but it is advice we need and all that report does is give us advice. Your Excellency, I hope the House will substantially support the motion moved by the Minister for Tourism.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I would agree with the hon. Minister for the L.G.B. that this is only a report, this is only to be agreed with and the nitty-gritty comes at a later date. We have heard in this House about the sewerage problem and we have heard about this problem and that problem and a Dutch auction between having sports facilities or first-time buyers' houses or getting the sewerage sorted out. I am sorry, It is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of getting down to the job in hand and providing the facilities that good Government provides. For far too long our sportsmen and women on this Island have had politicians who have sympathised and said, 'Jam tomorrow,' which really is what the amendment by my good friend Mr. Cain is: jam tomorrow which will never come. I will support the principle of this resolution even though I have doubts on different things. I am not happy with their recommendations of what they are going to do as far as the Sports Council is concerned, because I believe over the years this is one of the problems, that we have allowed the Sports Council but have never given it the teeth to really get down to the job in hand. I would say that as far as the other amendments are concerned where we have from the junior member for Rushen, I feel that the attitude of bringing it out to St. John's so that it is not convenient for anybody is not a suitable idea. Does he then mean, as it is supposed to be a proposed site for the St. John's school and
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1646 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
Foxdale school amalgamation, does he then propose to make it unsuitable for them so they can all get bussed into Douglas to be educated? When we come down to the other amendment that we have here which is from the member for South Douglas, I have to say that there is an initial flaw anyway because it does not say in it the Bowl complex as well, and also I have to say that, really, again, these two amendments of the siting are red herrings and are superfluous, and what concerns me is when you hear people in this hon. Court talking about. We cannot put it down there because of the power station? What about the people that live down there all the year round? (Members: Hear, hear.)
I have to say that I have finally figured out why the Establishment has put me onto the Local War Pensions Committee now (Laughter) because of the problems with terrorism from the Pulroseites1 I have to say that I find it quite objectionable1 to be said that there is a security problem in King George V Park. It is absolute rubbish, rubbish. All I would say to this hon. House, and normally, like I did over the Steam Packet debate, because so many of us repeat what has been already said ten, 15 times before, is that I hope that the Treasury mavericks do not do their usual thing that happens, like my new famous saying of the 'cod syndrome,' and not do another famous syndrome of this Island where we go only half-way. If we are going to provide these sporting facilities, then we go the full way and we do the job right instead of in the past saying, 'Oh well, we will go so far but we will not go the whole hog.' We must have a commitment to going the full way because this section of our community, the sports people of this Island, never mind the tourists, our own people of this Island have long waited for good sound sporting facilities and leisure facilities without having to go into a public bar to do so, because I think there is a further reason why we are going to have to support this, because I think as the years go on and our environment is destroyed more by the Sellafield complex not so far away, it will be most imperative to have our young people with a firm commitment to health consciousness because I think that this will be another proven fact as far as this. So I shall support this proposal that is on the Floor today without the red herrings, without the 'jam tomorrow syndrome.' Today we want it, get on with it.
Mr. Kermode: Hear, hear.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I agree with the member who has just resumed his seat. I think we should stop skirting around this one, quite honestly. I think the resolution on the Agenda Paper begs the question, do we want sporting and leisure facilities or don't we? And I do believe that those members of this hon. Court who do not want sporting and leisure facilities should vote against this resolution and not look to defer it or putting off the decision-making day but to vote against it today and be honest to their constituents (Members: Hear, hear.) and those who obviously want sporting facilities for this Island. I believe that those of us that do want sporting facilities and leisure facilities should be supporting this resolution as it is printed if we want any progress at all and I do believe the majority of members in this hon. Court do want that progress. The hon. member Mr. Quine, when he was on his feet, suggested that the Minister
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1647
of Tourism had chosen the easy way forward by putting this resolution down, by trying to do something and by trying to spend some money. I would suggest to the hon. member that that is quite wrong. The easy way forward is to do nothing and defer making the decision, and I would suggest, Your Excellency, that we have gone past that stage.
Mr. Cannan: That was the previous Administration. (Laughter)
Mr. Walker: The previous Administration, Your Excellency, may have had its faults but one thing it did try to do was bring up to date our water facilities, our water leisure facilities and the Local Government Board spent many hours (Mr. Duggan: Hear, hear.) deliberating on the future of the Aquadrome. We came to this hon. Court with proposals to — what expression shall I use? — tart the facility up, to provide it with extra amenities, to spend some money on it. This hon. Court said, 'No, do not do that, go back and think again about a new facility.' There is a suggestion today that that new facility should be at the Villa Marina and there is almost a suggestion that we should make do and mend with the Aquadrome again. Some time, hon. members, we have got to get out of this position of going round and round in circles and do something positive. We can make do and mend as we have done in the past and we really will end up with nothing. Also I think it is true to say that if we aim too high we will end up with nothing because members will be concerned about the massive expenditure that is envisaged, and I accept and understand that, Your Excellency, and I think there is a danger at this stage of us aiming too high and I think, in supporting this resolution as it is written, the Department of Tourism, as part of the remit in part (3) of the resolution, in fact have to go away and come back with a programme probably spanning quite a number years in which this sports centre, wherever it is to be sited, will be completed. I do not believe any single member of this Court thinks that the Treasury are going to write out a cheque for £10 million and say to the Tourist Department, 'Go away and build a sports centre.' Things do not work that way. What is needed is for a site to be decided on, for the basic facilities to be put there — and I suggested that is probably a track and changing rooms — and build on that over a period of years. I think that that is the responsible way forward. I also have to say, and I have expressed the view to the Minister for Tourism, that I think the design that is proposed at this stage for the Aqua Centre at the Villa Marina site is probably excessive. I do not accept that a straightforward rectangular pool as we have in the Aquadrome is the sort of facility that a community of this sort needs any more; I think we have progressed beyond that. We do need walk-in water, we probably need a wave machine, we certainly need six lanes swimming facility for the competitive element. I am not convinced in my own mind that those segments of an Aqua Centre need to be completely separated, as the philosophy of the design that is on view at the moment. However, I would suggest that those steps, those investigations, those feasibilities are next in line, and that is in fact what part (2) of this resolution is requesting. You cannot do designs, feasibilities, find out what final costings are going to be without spending any money. I mean, we get an awful lot out of professional people on this Island on trust, as it were, or on hope value that at the end of the day the •scheme will proceed. I think a facility of this sort is not in that bracket and we
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1648 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 have to face up to the fact that we are going to have to pay professionals to advise us, but, as I say, I do believe there is a danger that in fact we will aim too high and we will get nothing and I think it is something that we have to be aware of. The design of the Aqua Centre as proposed for the Villa Marina is a design that has been prepared by consultants for the Department of Tourism. It is not a design that has had any lengthy debate over or any agreement over; it is a design that has developed over a period of time. I believe it needs looking at. Your Excellency, as far as the site is concerned, I agree with those hon. members who have said now is not the time to debate the site. We all have our favourites; my own is King George V Park. I believe that that part of Douglas could do with this sort of investment. I think it would do the town good. Having said that, I am aware of the problems of vandalism and I think we would be foolish to ignore them. We have probably all experienced it from time to time with different facilities that we have had to do with putting on in that area.
Mr. Kermode: You get vandalism everywhere, everywhere.
Mr. Walker: However, I think, Your Excellency, there was also criticism of the Department of Tourism of going to get experts out to produce a report for the department. I do not agree with that criticism at all. I believe that we need a report from a professional point of view taking into account the views of our sporting fraternity. I do not believe for one minute that we should just accept all the recommendations as are written. There is obviously a political aspect to graft in and, hon. members, that is our job. We have got the report, we have got their recommendations, we then have to decide as politicians what part of those reports we should go ahead with, what parts we should put on ice and so on, and that is our prerogative and I think it is important that we do it. As far as funding is concerned, of course we should look to see if there are any private sources available, we should look to see if there is any sponsorship available. My guess will be that the private sources will be available for the revenue-earning side of the project and the parts of the project which are going to cost money in fact will have to be funded by Government. But, nevertheless, we have to look at the different alternatives that are available to us and certainly I would agree with the aspect of the thoughts of self-help that have been suggested by some members and the possibility of the sporting fraternity themselves adding to the facilities that have to be provided as a base, but before that can happen a site has to be decided and basic facilities have to be put in and I do not believe anybody else can do that but Government. I think it is all very well saying we need our sewers, we need our education, we need our health services, of course we do, but we also need sporting and leisure facilities and they have to take part in our budgeting programme. Sport is for all ages, it is not just for the young. At the moment we have got very mixed sporting facilities on this Island, we have got some very good ones, but we have some pretty lousy ones as well, and despite that, not because of it, there are hundreds and hundreds of people every week involved in one sort of sport or another and I think that they deserve our support to do•something that I believe we can. It is obviously important for tourism, but I must say the main thrust of my
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1649
thinking is that they are facilities that must be available for the residents of the Island. We are trying to build up our number of residents, we are trying to lower the age profile of our residents, we are trying to build up the income of our residents, and I would suggest those are exactly the sort of people that will be looking for the sporting and leisure facilities which, if we approve this resolution, we will end up with. I beg to support the resolution.
Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, I am not looking at either the national sports centre or the indoor water centre as two amenities. I am mainly concerned with what use the local people can make of these, remembering the locals are here for 12 months of the year while the visitors are spread out over a period of two or three months. Now I am also not considering where these schemes should fit in in our list of priorities. All I am looking at is the resolution before us and I can support all three parts of it. Now we have heard quite a bit of talk about where this sports centre should be and personally when we hear about the large amount of opposition to Noble's Park, as it has been referred to, I have been approached by four persons only. Two of them were my constituents who contacted me by phone and after discussion accepted there were valid arguements why Noble's Playing Fields offer the best site for a sports centre. The other two were the ladies who had collected names of people who it is claimed are opposed to the plans for Noble's Playing Fields development, as suggested in this report, though it is very doubtful whether many, if any, of those whose names appear on the document handed in as a petition to my colleague Mr. Cain as a trustee of Henry Bloom Noble Trust, I wonder whether they have ever seen the report they are opposing. Now these two very pleasant ladies, who I have known for a very long time, came to see me and explained their objections to the proposals. They live in North Douglas close to Noble's Playing Fields and the views they expressed to me were no different to the views expressed by residents in the vicinity of any proposed development. I have gone through this exercise over and over again since 1951 with virtually every school proposal we put up every youth proposal we put up, and other departments also have had the same objections. The situation is clear: the vast majority of people are in favour of schools, youth clubs, sports centres, factories, power stations, et cetera et cetera, being established so long as it is not established on their doorstep. These two ladies explained to me the inconvenience and noise that they have had to put up with through the T.T. Races for many years and they said the time had come to say, 'Enough'. They did not want the noise generated from a sports area, quoting Onchan Stadium as an example. Now having lived adjacent to the T.T. course since 1937 I can speak from experience and can quite honestly say that after the first morning's practice you hardly notice the noise from the races, it is something that is in the background and you are not really aware of it. Now petitions or so-called petitions, they are the easiest thing in the world to go round and get names on a bit of paper, and people come along with a bit of paper and they say there are 540 names, I believe, is on this. Certainly the signatures do not match the names in a lot of the cases, but that means nothing because somebody could go round, I am quite certain, and bring another petition back, or so-called petition, with just the opposite point of view. What we must remember:
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1650 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 in Douglas there are 20,000 people who have not signed that petition or made any approach to us, and if you look at the Gallery today, where is this so-called opposition? It is not there. Now it must be remembered that Noble's Playing Fields are already a sports and recreation area. That was what it was given to the town of Douglas for and the indenture made in November 1909 between the then trustees of the will of the late Henry Bloom Noble, James Spittall of Laureston and the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas makes this quite clear. A sum of money was made available for the purchasing of a parcel of land as a playing field or pleasure ground, place of public resort or recreation, and there were certain conditions placed on the development which were as follows: 'The said fields shall be called Noble's Playing Fields. 2. No building or erection of any kind shall be placed upon the said fields excepting a caretaker's house, a refreshment room or rooms and a pavilion or pavilions with dressing and lavatory rooms and a bandstand.' Now that is quite clear. The area was never intended to be a park; it was the Noble's Playing Fields and there is no restriction on the number of refreshment rooms or pavilions that can be built on it. Now these playing fields were established well before the majority of the houses in which the objectors live. Noble's Playing Fields have not been developed as they should have been. One of the main uses it has been put to is for people to walk their dogs and the dogs foul the playing areas. There is a cattery there which hardly fits in with the conditions laid down in the indenture of 1909, and in this hot weather it is very noticeable from a very long way off. I wonder if the ratepayers of Douglas know how much that cattery costs them. There are 11 cats housed there and the deficiency alone amounts to £1,000 per cat per year: very expensive cats.
Mr. Duggan: Mere moggies.
Mr. Kermode: And they have got nine lives! (Laughter)
Mr. Kneale: I have looked carefully at the plans included in the report we are discussing today and I do not believe they contravene the conditions in the agreement made between the trustees of the will of the late Henry Bloom Noble and the Douglas Corporation. Care will have to be taken in the construction of any buildings, but the synthetic pitch and athletics track are an accepted part of modern-day recreation and would be a big improvement on what there is in this recreation ground, because that is what we knew it as when we were children: we went to the `rec', we never went to the park.
Mr. Brown: You have wrecked it!
Mr. Duggan: He was one of the vandals!
Mr. Kneale: Looking at the various sites that have been suggested we have to take into consideration the availability of people to use them and, looking at the various sites from the purely educational aspect, I have to come down strongly in favour of Noble's Playing Fields. This area is surrounded by schools and making comparisons between King George V Park, which I understand the Corporation
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1651
is favouring, and Noble's Playing Fields, 1,786 pupils attend schools near to King George V Park and 3,239 pupils attend schools near the Noble's Playing Fields. There are 346 pupils in schools which are about equidistant between the two sites and 1,200 of the pupils whose school is nearer to King George V Park are only one mile away from Noble's Playing Fields. So we can say that virtually half the school population, Island school population, are within a radius of one mile from the Noble's Playing Fields. St. John's has been introduced into the debate, but that would be useless. There are only a relatively few children attending schools in the vicinity, so I discount it completely. Now the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, suggests it only takes nine minutes to get to St. John's from Douglas; I think he was repeating what somebody had said at a meeting. Now the average speed to achieve that would be 60 miles per hour, (Laughter) but it is not the time it takes but the cost of conveyance and that would be tremendous. Now if we are talking about, again, purely the educational use of the facilities, St. John's would be a non-starter. Now some members have told us that they have read the report carefully, but their remarks indicate otherwise, either that or they are reading without comprehension. Whilst considering the receipt of the report we want to make sure that we fully appreciate what the recommendations contained in the Executive Summary say and I would make special reference to recommendation 6 on page 31 of that document. It reads as follows: 'Seek substantial capital gain from disposal of Derby Castle complex. If positive, create national sports complex on a large high profile site near Douglas. If negative, retain and refurbish Derby Castle as a national and community centre for indoor sports.' So the options there are clear, that you do not have to abandon the place at the end of the promenade as an indoor sports facility unless you are going to get a substantial amount of money from the sale of it. I believe that the recommendations that have been put before us should be accepted fully and they are only the starting point, they do not include any particular area at all, sir. I support the resolution.
Mr. D.C. Cretney: Your Excellency, I shall not be speaking at great length today. What I do believe is that there is now and has been a need for major capital expenditure in our tourist and leisure infrastructure and in fact since 1969 there has been no major capital expenditure in this area, and today there is still apparent amongst some members a reluctance to even begin to redress the imbalance that exists when comparing what the Island has in that area when compared with other areas of both the United Kingdom and beyond. . We have engaged professional consultants in the tourism and leisure field and before members today is a list of the recommendations that they consider as a blueprint towards the future, and I have checked and checked again and nowhere among their recommendations on pages 31 to 33 of their Executive Summary is a positive site identified, as been stated before. On recommendations 6 and 7 a large high-profile site near Douglas is stated as being the optimum available, because there is no doubt that any such venture must be adjacent to the principal centre of population in order to attempt to make such a project as near to being financially viable as possible. I agree it has been suggested that Noble's Park may have been their first choice, but I am sure it is quite apparent
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1652 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 to hon. members that such a site is a non-starter, it is not going to happen. On that aspect, hon. members, I think it is good for democracy that we, the members of Tynwald Court assembled, are today discussing this matter in open forum. Compared with the professional blueprint in front of members, some of us have decided that we have become experts in this field. We have one member present with a vision and my question to him is, what commercial experience has he in this area? Does he not realise that in order to achieve as near cost-effectiveness as possible, facilities which would potentially be very expensive must have the maximum usage? Therefore despite its attractive setting and historical context, St. John's is not the best location. We then have one member who takes his advice from the Good Housekeeping magazine and I really do not believe that further comment on that should be made, it is enough in itself. (Laughter) We have another who suggests that the Bowl in King George V Park would not be suitable partly because of the emissions and I ask hon. members, do they not agree that if it is all right for my constituents to live on the doorstep of this power station, then it must be equally acceptable for athletes to spend an hour or two in that location, and on that aspect I go back to our Chief Minister who spoke just a couple of speakers ago and spoke about the vandalism aspect and I would ask him, I would request that perhaps he should take a visit up to the Pulrose Youth and Community Centre which was put in place by the Department of Education about just over something over a year ago and the vandalism that has taken place there has been minimal, and the reason for that is that if you provide facilities of a sufficient standard, (Mrs. Hannan: Hear, hear.) then the children and the young people who may have got into trouble before avoid any possible problems. If you provide the facilities, they will use their energies in that way. (Mr. Kermode: Hear, hear.) We had the suggestion of a site in that area being put forward as an amendment, but the site of the amendment is stated as the King George V Park. However, if that area is to be the site, as I believe ultimately it must be, the Bowl should also have been included, as that should be the area for a synthetic pitch and that is the way that the site, including the present users, can be capacitated, so the amendment should have read 'King George V Park and the Bowl', but I understand that this afternoon things have progressed in another place, so that comment may now be out of date. The proposal for an Aqualeisure Centre at the Villa Marina site is worthy of members' unanimous support and indeed it should get that. A pool in itself is one avenue we must not go down. Pools are being closed down, they do not pay. What the customer of today and the people of the Island as well as the visitors require are the other aspects that are proposed to go alongside it. If members wish to support the tourist industry in any way they must support that proposal. Finally, Your Excellency, since the 1950s our sports people have looked for a lead from their elected representatives. Let us today show we have the will to take the first step in that direction.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I rise to support the resolution, and as the debate has laboriously. run on I felt that at times there was danger of the resolution becoming lost in a labyrinth of conjecture. The resolution as printed represents, in fact, the major platform on which I was elected to this House and, as such, naturally I support
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1653 it. What seems to have taken place in the course of the debate is that members have completely ignored the resolution and its implications. We only want to receive the report in the resolution. Naturally it seeks to carry out exploratory work in respect of a pool that each and every person here is going to endorse I think this afternoon, and it hopes to give consideration to other proposals in respect of capital expenditure and management of support in the Isle of Man — all worthwhile objectives. But, Your Excellency, this resolution is but one of a series that are being bedevilled because of the failure of Cabinet to determine its priorities. Until that is done we are going to be subjected to these interminable debates with members rightly pondering a question 'what is to be the Government priority?' while, at the same time, demonstrating an insatiable appetite for repetition. This morning, Your Excellency, as a Government resolution in the name of the hon. member for Ramsey was being presented, the Treasury felt obliged to fire a warning shot pointing to its financial implications. Yet the minister himself gave support and it is interesting that in his memorandum he concludes with a plea for priorities to be determined. In the course of the debate his two colleagues have made the same plea. When is the message going to get over to the Cabinet? Are they deaf, are they immune to the pleas of the House, or are they just determined to wallow on without any real objectives taking the plea of each minister as it comes and is loudly demanded and putting that forward as the policy of the day? Your Excellency, I shall not support any of the amendments this afternoon. I regard them as being mainly premature and I would compliment the minister on at least providing a formula for progress.
Mrs. Hannan: Your Excellency, I believe what we are talking about here today is an all-weather running track and, as always, I think, we seem to go over the top. We have grandiose schemes coming before us and this is how I see the Pickering Torkildsen report. Mr. Karran said that we should not go half-way in anything, it should be all or nothing and, to be quite honest, I cannot agree with that. I think what we have to do is plan for a modest programme, and in that I agree with the Chief Minister. We started off and what we were looking at was this all-weather running track and down the way we seem to have got lost in this myriad of all other applications of sport which are in themselves important but I do not feel that we should be planning them all at once. If we do we are going to lose the all-weather running track and that is the lost important thing. However, I do agree with some of the other members about priority and about planning and planning within Government and the amount of money that we have available, and while the Treasury Minister telling us that we have got plenty of money and 'Do not worry, lads, you can spend and spend and spend' because he can find the money for us, that is wonderful and I shall certainly remember that at Budget time. However, when we are planning I really believe ... and it has also been said today, Your Excellency, about green areas, green belts, and we do need that. We see in Douglas, I consider, quite a well planned town; we have houses built around greens, around squares with gardens and these are kept wonderfully by Douglas Corporation. There are two green areas in Douglas that are now exposed, and that is Noble's Park and also Noble's Gardens at the Villa Marina, and Noble's Park, it seems, is out; there is opposition to that, but I would be very sad too to see Noble's Gardens at the Villa Marina disappear because I do think they add to the value
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1654 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 and the quality of life and this is what we should be looking at — houses but also planning around these houses and planning for green areas because of the need for a better quality of life. Now when we get down to actually planning where these are going to be, I think parking is essential, whether it is in the middle of a large population, because if there is not anywhere to park it does cause disruption to the people living in that area, cars left in all sorts of places and the people living in that area not able to park their cars, so I do think that parking is essential. And while Noble's Park, it was said, was in walking distance I would think that not many people would walk to these facilities. What we have to think about it are the users of these facilities, and while it is the Department of Tourism and Transport that are bringing this forward it has been posed by Pickering Torkildsen in the report that the name should be changed to `Leisure', I think that we as a Government ought to consider the rates of pay that will be charged to people using these facilities, and therefore I think we have to increase, or at least look to ways of increasing, the rates of pay that people receive to be able to use these facilities that we are providing. After all, I do not see any point in providing expensive facilities if people have not got the money to use them. Now, an Aqualeisure Centre or a running track are not going to solve all our problems. We do need basic facilities not only for our own people but also for tourists, and I do keep going on about it but it saddens me to see the state of our towns — dirt which we tend to accept, places that are never cleaned and I think really, when we are looking for other leisure facilities and all-weather running tracks and improved sports facilities, I do think that we should be looking at our cleanliness above facilities, and so I would hope that within this, from the Tourist Board especially, some motivation can go out not only to private people but also Government agencies and local authorities to try and clean up areas. Now when we are actually looking at the facilities themselves and in the Pickering 'Torkildsen report, it does say that the synthetic track and a separate floodlit synthetic pitch on a large high profile site near Douglas — it does not say 'in Douglas', it says `near Douglas' — and I would put it to this hon. Court that there are not many places that are not near Douglas, so I would think that any areas are open to consideration when we are looking for the synthetic track and the synthetic pitch. I too, like the Chief Minister, question the need for this pool and leisure facility. I would hope that they could all be operated in the one so that the leisure pool can also be used for competitions should they ever come about. I do believe in a modest start. I think that St. John's it is probably the area that I would choose because it is easy to get to for everyone. (Interruption) Peel was never considered by the Pickering Torkildsen report except for a pool but they nicely skirted round Peel, I think, probably because the Minister for Tourism and Transport took them to Ramsey instead to look at the Mooragh area (Laughter) and I think, no matter where we place these facilities, that that there should be supportive transport and I would hope that the Department of Tourism and Transport will look at that so that people from all over the Island can get to these facilities for equality of use. Now when we come down to my own area... and I must mention that because the Pickering Torkildsen report suggests a community pool for Peel which I think is very nice to see and it is something that I have been going on for a long time in this Court. They do say, I think, next to the High School in Peel. That, of course,
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1655 does not happen to be in Peel, but I will overlook that because I have another site which is nearer the Clothworkers' School which would do very nicely with the agreement of my commissioners, and you will obviously be aware that will be forthcoming. So I must admit I do feel a great amount of sympathy for Mr. Cain's amendment. However, I will support this very large sum of money to go and look for planning, and that is a quarter of a million pounds which, Your Excellency, I would like to see possibly spent on a fishing boat or something like that, but I suppose, when I go back to Treasury to ask for money for a fishing boat, it will be there.
Mr. Kermode: We would love to buy you a fishing boat! (Laughter)
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, subject to the proper listing in the Government's financial priorities, I certainly support the principles of this report to improve sports facilities in the Island. However, I would like to comment on one or two specific areas which I hope the hon. minister will consider. The first concerns the Aqua Centre. Honestly Your Excellency, the outdoor lagoon where apparently you can swim even when it is snowing makes me shiver!
Mr. Kermode: Because you cannot swim!
Mr. Gilbey: I can swim well, but it makes me shiver, either because it will be so cold or because of the prohibitive cost in this Island of heating such a stretch of water continuously to an acceptable level. I really cannot believe that this is necessary or can be considered any kind of priority. Again, I agree with the hon. member for Douglas North, Mrs. Delaney, who said 'Let us have a competition pool with some additions'. As the Chief Minister has said, we must not aim too high and I really feel that the enclosed leisure area is far too grandiose, particularly to start with, and that we should start that on a smaller scale, possibly planning so it could be expanded later. My main concern, however, is the siting of the proposed national sports complex. Other hon. members have almost completely demolished the arguments for it being at Noble's Park. However, I would like to add some additional reasons for the unsuitability of that park which I do not think have yet been mentioned. It totally fails on the criteria of adequacy of sites. Now there may be room to squeeze in the immediate proposals, but surely, Your Excellency, we are planning not just for today but for the twenty-first century, when ever greater use will be made of sporting facilities. Therefore we must choose a site with very adequate room for substantial expansion which Noble's Park site certainly does not afford us. However, Noble's Park does not just fail on this criteria; it fails on practical grounds as well. Firstly, surely it cannot be right on a windswept Island such as this to build a national sports arena on such an exposed site which can be lashed so much by wind and rain. Next, I think that at the Postgraduate Medical School it came out that the construction costs on that site may be higher than those on other sites due to the slope there. However, I need not detain this hon. Court on the arguments against Noble's Park, because in any case it appears that Douglas Corporation will not, and the Trustees of the late Mr. Noble may not, agree to its use. The second alternative site proposed in the report, that of King George V Park
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1656 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 and the Bowl have been effectively demolished by the hon. minister himself who has made it clear how unattractive he feels they are. This area fails on four out of the six criteria. In terms of prominence of location and context of surroundings, surely no-one can advocate placing a major sporting centre for the twenty-first century next to a vibrating power station with two soaring power station chimneys. Also, do we want those taking part in activities there to be covered with dust and soot from the power station chimneys? (Laugh) Hon. members may laugh —
Mr. Kesrmode: But it is all right for the people that live there.
Mr. Gilbey: I will come to your constituents in a minute. Apparently sometimes the garages near the power station have to clean the cars outside every other day. I sympathise with the problem of the constituents in that area, your constituents, but the fact that unfortunately, and through no fault of most members of this hon. Court, they have to suffer these conditions is surely no argument for making a new sports facility suffer the same conditions. Next, it is admitted by the consultants that the size of the Bowl alone is not adequate for the complex and that it would take both the Bowl and a large part of the park. Therefore, once again we have a site with no room for the kind of expansion we should be planning for the next century. Again, all of us who have attended the Royal Manx Shows at the Bowl and King George V Park know only too well how inadequate the car parking spaces are there. Car parking for these shows has to depend on the use of Port-e-Chee and this might well not be permitted for regular events for a new facility to be placed there and then — I say this with true regret — as the Chief Minister has stated, it is true unfortunately the Bowl area is subject to serious vandalism —
Mr. Karran: Rubbish!
Mr. Gilbey: It is not rubbish, you only have to look at the cricket club there and see that it has got things across its windows that it looks more like a fortified dug-out than a cricket pavilion, and why? We all know why. I am sorry about this, but I think we have got to accept is the true facts of life. Now the use of the Bowl also has the very grave disadvantage that it is merely taking up existing park and sports areas and I know this rightly concerns, in principle, many members of this hon. Court. Therefore we have to find another site, and I believe — and I am glad that other members who are not from that area believe — that in St. John's we have a site that meets all the criteria set out in the evaluation of sites by the consultants and has many other advantages as well. Taking the first criterion of accessibility. It is one of the most accessible points in the Island from north, south, east and west — (Interruptions) It is true. It lies at the crossroads of the main north/south and east/west arteries. Now it really is absurd for the consultants to try and make out that if the site was in Douglas, people living in Douglas and, more important, visitors, would not need motor transport to get to it. Your Excellency, we are living in a day and age when few of us in this hon. Court would walk even from this hon. Court to the Sea Terminal building — let us be honest, we would go by our cars.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1657
A Member: Too true, you are right there!
Mr. Gilbey: Similarly, the vast majority of people who use motor vehicles would get from all parts of Douglas and Onchan to a centre, whether it was at Noble's Park or King George's Park. Furthermore, in this age when people will not walk if they did not have transport to do this, they would be unlikely to go even if the centre was in Douglas unless they lived almost next door to it.
Mr. Kermode: They will not walk to St. John's.
Mr. Gilbey: Now I am sure that hon. members cannot envisage visiting teams walking from the promenade to Noble's Park or King George's Park. Indeed, it is a fact that visiting teams for the hockey and Rugby festivals do not walk to King George's Park and other pitches; they go by motor coach and it would not cost them a great deal more to go just a bit further down to St. John's. Even more important than all this is the fact that we are planning for the twenty-first century, and in the next century every family, virtually, will have one or more cars. If you look at the tourist market too, we are aiming for a market for visitors who are more affluent. Therefore they will either bring cars with them or hire cars on arrival. In the meantime surely it is not beyond our ability to provide additional bus services as required to and from St. John's. Thus we should plan for a site, not for the nineteenth century when everyone used Shanks' pony, but for the twenty-first century when everyone owns a car. I cannot agree with the hon. member of Council who has suggested to us that an international running track is like a shop: it should be in the town centre for impulse use. We all know this is not true. People who use international running tracks pre-arrange it with clubs and trainers and others, and do not let us pretend that all the children at school in Douglas would walk to and from a Douglas site. (Interruption) Of course they would not; many would go by bus and car. In any case, children from the north, west and south would have to be bussed to a centre in Douglas and there is no reason why those from Douglas could not be bussed as required to St. John's. The shorter journeys of the St. John's site for children in the south and west would at least partially compensate for the financially longer journey from Douglas. Now I must say, I find the statement on page 29 of the report, that 'although St. John's can be reached by road from all directions the journey times are in our view prohibitive for regular use', quite astonishing particularly from people coming from the adjacent isle, where a journey of half-an-hour or an hour is absolutely nothing. Accordingly I am convinced that St. John's meets the criteria on grounds of accessibility. It also meets the criteria of prominence of location. After all, St. John's is at the very centre of our Island, not only geographically but in terms of importance to our traditions, our history and our present Island life. It contains Tynwald Hill and church, it has the magnificent national arboretum and the Forestry Division gardens. It has some of the most superb views in the whole of the Island. Now it certainly also meets the criteria of adequate size, because there is not only adequate room for the initial proposals but for them to be doubled or trebled or quadrupled in the next century. It also matches the criteria of the context of surroundings. Not only is it in the vicinity of Tynwald Hill et cetera, as I have
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion CArried T1658 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 mentioned, but it is close to thriving cricket and football clubs and again fits in naturally with the proposed national show field which has not so far been mentioned in today's debate.
The Speaker: It was turned down as inadequate.
Mr. Gilbey: It also fits in with a national heritage centre which is planned for St. John's; furthermore, the west of the Island is strong in sporting clubs and sporting traditions. Certainly, St. John's matches the criteria regarding the provision of car parking. There are already excellent car parking spaces and more could be made available. Finally, security and lack of vandalism is a high criterion for St. John's.
Mr. Brown: No one out there!
Mr. Gilbey: I think there is an even more important reason in choosing St. John's or indeed, if not St. John's, another area outside Douglas. All our Island's facilities should not be concentrated in Douglas and Onchan. If they are, we shall be making the same mistake as the adjacent isles, where virtually everything is centred round London and the South-East, which become ever more prosperous and better catered for to the comparative detriment of the rest of the U.K. It is also interesting that in the U.K. national sports centres are not all in towns and although the consultants told us in the Postgraduate Medical Centre that this was a mistake which was now regretted, there must have been very good reasons why sports centres such as that at Bisham Abbey was placed in the Thames Valley. Again, St. John's is a sheltered situation which must be important for a sports complex. All the land that would be needed both for the initial development and for expansion is owned by the Government and therefore there would be no arguments or hassle regarding land acquisition, nor would there be any cost of land acquisition. This surely must appeal to those who are concerned, and rightly, by the Minister of the Treasury's recent paper. Again, for those worried by costs I would point out, that as has been said by others, particularly at the St. John's site this could be phased gradually — firstly, an all-weather running track, which is what we are really looking for without all these other frills, complete with its changing rooms and, at a later date, an all weather sports pitch together with additional buildings. Finally, and perhaps the most important of all, Your Excellency, St. John's site is welcomed by the local commissioners, those of Patrick and German, by the Peel Commissioners and above all by the local people, so if the hon. minister comes to St. John's he will be welcomed and not torn to pieces by an angry crowd.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Gilbey: Therefore, Your Excellency, I would urge this hon. Court to support the hon. member for Rushen's amendment and agree to the reconsideration of the St. John's site and I would end by pointing out that this amendment does not say it must be on the St. John's site, it merely asks that that site should be reconsidered and, surely, when it has been agreed that everything is in a planning stage still in the melting pot it is not unreasonable to ask that the advantages of the St. John's site which I have set out should at least be reconsidered and a report brought back
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1659 to this hon. Court.
The Governor: Hon. members, almost unable to remember who moved this motion. I call upon the minister to reply.
Mr. Bell: Thank you, Your Excellency. I will try not to keep members very long. It has been a much longer debate than I had anticipated, I have to say. In some respects I must admit also I find it slightly disappointing insofar as there have been so many red-herrings flashing across this debate today that we have somewhat lost track of what in fact the resolution and proposals are all about. It has been mentioned, Your Excellency, a number of times by members in an attempt to remind other members what we are talking about that what we are asking this Court to do today is simply, first of all, to receive the report; our second request is that we are given approval to preliminary expenditure for design work not exceeding £1/4 million for the new Aqua Centre and, thirdly that we be requested to consider and have regard to the remaining recommendations in the Pickering Torkildsen report. We are not, at this stage, talking about specific sites or even the context of those sites, and that seems to be a fact that has been overlooked by members right from the start of this debate. There is no attempt at this stage to pin members down to one site or another. What we are asking for is quite simply approval, if you like, in principle to what we are proposing but to have the right to go away and reconsider those recommendations in that light. As I say, Your Excellency, I do find it disappointing that members have got away from that because I think we have missed a little bit which could have been brought out in the debate today, and that is some of the other recommendations within the report which are very wide-ranging if members in fact had studied them. A number of comments have been made, for example, Your Excellency, about concentrating all these facilities in Douglas whereas, in actual fact, we are recommending that a management structure be set up within the Tourist Department to improve, expand, co-ordinate, develop facilities all round the Island and especially work in conjunction with the Board of Education which I think is a very sound proposal. This in fact would open up a lot of existing facilities round the Island and make sure in fact that everything is not concentrated in Douglas. I just mention that as one point in passing, Your Excellency, because it has been touched on a number of times by members and, as I say, I am sorry that in fact the opportunity to expand on that has been lost. Your Excellency, I do not intend to go on at any length because I am quite sure most hon. members now have made up their mind one way or the other, but there are just two or three points I would like to reply to, if I may crave the Court's indulgence. First of all the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, who unfortunately made his usual level of contribution to this debate by starting off by alleging, in fact, that I was ramming ideas down people's throats last night at this particular meeting in Douglas. There are other members in this Court today who, I am quite sure, will confirm that there were no attempts whatsoever to ram ideas down anyone's throat; in fact, if anything was getting rammed down throats it was mine in return! It is giving a complete false impression to the outside world to think that my department, or indeed the Sports Council, are trying to force their ideas on anyone, and whether you agree or not with our proposals, I hope you at least will
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1660 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 give us credit for that. The hon. member, of course, has gone right back to square one again, in spite of the investigation which has been taking place, proposing the idea of St. John's. Really, nothing has moved on at all; the argument is exactly the same. I cannot, with the best will in the world, accept that St. John's is a starter in this exercise but, nevertheless, the proposal that we are putting forward is that the department simply has regard to the remaining recommendations of the report so at this stage there is no final decision made on the site. That is as much as I can say on that, but I would just add, Your Excellency, that we are talking about developing a good standard of facility for our sports people on the Isle of Man. We are not talking about a sports day to be held at St. John's as an adjunct to Tynwald Day which the hon. member has tried to develop. It is quite irrelevant to try to put the proposals that we are putting forward in that sort of context. These are very serious proposals for quality facilities. I would like also briefly, Your Excellency, to comment on the observation made by Mr. Corrin that in fact Pickering Torkildsen had a vested interest in this proposal, and I would like to make it very clear to hon. members at this time that this partnership were invited in by my department in conjunction with the Sports Council, giving them a very specific brief of drawing up an objective and independent review of the existing sports facilities on the Isle of Man and their recommendations as to the way forward. That was their brief, that is what they have done; they were not interfered with in any way, they had complete freedom to see who they want or where they want, they were not nudged in any direction and I resent very strongly the implication that there is some vested interest involved with Pickering Torkildsen. They are of the very highest standard and I think they would be most upset to hear that sort of allegation made in this House to try and score cheap political points. Mr. Cain, again, has raised the problem of priorities and one or two other members have as well, and I can see that is obviously to be an on-going problem for any capital scheme that comes along. I would suggest, though — and I have said it before — that it is quite illogical for Government to sit down and have the nuts and bolts of every capital scheme put together, costed out, programmed, right across the board and a list of priorities drawn up at thai stage. Government cannot work in that way. We have to go ahead on a broad basis; we cannot have simply every scheme itemised before the first scheme will actually start. We have identified as our top priority at the moment the development of wet-weather facilities for tourists and sports facilities for our locals and tourists alike. We consider this a high priority in the Tourist Department's spending, and this is the best I can say to the hon. member at the moment. We have given it a lot of thought; it is not something that has just been pulled out of a hat, it is something which I think...and I know the hon. member travels a degree himself; I am sure the hon. member is well aware of just how far behind the Isle of Man is lagging in other resorts and, indeed, not only other resorts but other towns generally. The standards we are proposing now are accepted as norm in most reasonably sized connurbations and we must not lose sight of that fact. We are not simply putting these forward now as ideas to attract tourists in. I would go as far as saying that if in fact these schemes finally see the light of day, they will bring very few extra tourists in but what they will do is enhance the quality of the holiday for people that come here and make it more worthwhile, which in turn may bring them back again, but I am not saying
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1661 for one moment that this is going to bring thousands of tourists back to the Isle of Man. I accept his point on priorities. I know Executive Council has discussed this and will, within the best of their ability, come to some form of priority listing which I am sure ultimately will satisfy the hon. member, but within the terms of the Tourist Board we consider this a high priority, otherwise we would not have put it forward. But what we do not have on our side, hon. members, as far as tourism goes, is time. We have a very short period of time to try and get our product right before the industry goes down the tubes altogether, but we have a window of opportunity now for these next two or three years if we can get the shoiv on the road again. Tourism and leisure is the fastest growing industry in the world and we are well positioned, I believe, with the right degree of confidence and optimism, to cash in on it and start to turn this industry round — and optimism is coming back, confidence is coming back, and I think this year will show that the industry is off the bottom and starting to pull back again, but we in Government have to show confidence in that industry to encourage the industry itself to start reinvesting. If Government has not got confidence, if we have not got confidence in the future, how can we expect private enterprise outside to follow? It is quite illogical and I hope hon. members will accept that. I would just, finally on that point, have one other observation, and that is that the success we can achieve in the tourist industry will have a direct effect on Government revenues. It is a revenue earner, it is not simply going out, as some people like to think — we are not constantly pouring money down a drain. The tourist industry is still a nett earner for the Isle of Man and has tremendous potential for increasing that level of contribution. We must not lose sight of that fact. Your Excellency, I now come to the contribution of Mr. Barton but I must admit it was by far the most negative contribution of the whole day and one I find extremely difficult to follow. Indeed, we did in fact pay for the services of Pickering Torkildsen. Had I known that Good Housekeeping was available as well, we could have saved a considerable amount of money and gone to them in the first place! I wonder - in fact it worries me in a way, Your Excellency, when I hear the comments of some of the members today — just how alarming the gap in their knowledge is of what is happening in the real world when I hear some of the hare-brained comments which have come out. It is quite clear, from some of the comments which have been made, they have no awareness at all of what is going on in this fast moving leisure industry, otherwise they would never have made those comments. I wonder, Your Excellency, when Mr. Barton condemns the inclusion of fun waters and supports a straight 25-metre swimming pool, whether in fact he has ever seen a fun pool, to know in fact what he is talking about, because if he had he would have known immediately and recognised from the usage of it that they are two totally different animals we are talking about. It is not simply a slide into a traditional swimming pool, it is a very complex development, the Aqua Leisure developments these days; it is one which has revitalised a lot of traditional pools and is proving in some areas a considerable money spinner, and in fact I would also add — and I think my hon. colleague Mr. May mentioned it — that a good number of these are in fact developed by public authorities; they are not private enterprise, which he seems to stake such high faith in. I also am alarmed that after 18 months in Government the hon. member seems
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1662 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 to have no idea at all of the role that the Tourist Board plays in tourism on the Isle of Man, what its responsibilities are and, in fact, how tourism in the Isle of Man works, otherwise, again, he would not be so strongly opposed to Government being involved in the operation of facilities and tour operating on the Island. I would urge the hon. member, if he has some time, to come down and talk to us at the Tourist Board and he might in fact then be better aware of exactly the difficult role that the Tourist Board has to play at this moment. Mrs. Delaney, Your Excellency, mentioned a number of points. Again priorities came into it, but I will not go into that at this stage. But she did mention one idea that We should approach the sports people on the Isle of Man and achieve a pound- for-pound support. Now all that sounds very nice on paper until we sit down and think about how much money we are actually talking about. A simple running track will cost the best part of £1 million.
Mrs. Delaney: On equipment, sir.
Mr. Bell: Are we going to sit down with our sportsmen and ask them to raise £1/2 million pounds themselves before we will chip in with the other £1/2 million?
Mrs. Delaney: On equipment, sir.
Mr. Bell: You ask for their contribution, I think you should adopt a more realistic attitude to the ability of the sports people on the Isle of Man to join in such a venture. There is one area, I think, though, Your Excellency, which perhaps could be looked at and that is in the area of the lottery. The Irish sweepstakes lottery was scrapped some time ago and I believe the lottery now in Ireland, or the proceeds of the lottery in fact, are split between sport and the arts, and I think that might be a way forward for both these ventures on the Isle of Man in the future, but I think the hon. member is sadly astray if she thinks that we will be able to develop sports facilities or even equip the sports facilities on a pound-for-pound basis with our sportsmen on the Island. The only other comment, Your Excellency, I would like to make in relation to members' comments — Mr. Gilbey. First of all I did mention the proposal to ensure that the facilities are not all in one place. I hope I answered his question on that. The only other point that he did raise was a sectional building of the Aqua Centre. Now the proposals that we have at the moment preclude that completely and it is quite illogical to think that one of those can be possibly built on a stage basis; it would not work. And as for the outdoor lagoon, which seems to have raised a few smiles around this room, this is the very latest development in Aqua Centres. It is happening in a number of places throughout the country, throughout Scotland. I myself have swum in them in Austria with snow several feet around the pool and I know exactly what they are like; they are extremely popular, whether it is snowing, raining, whatever the weather is. Anyone, again, who has any knowledge of the development of leisure facilities will say that swimming outdoors is very stimulating and is extremely popular for those who are in a position to do it. It is not some bizarre addition we have made to this proposal simply to spend money; there is good reason behind it, but the proposal at this stage, which again is only a very draft proposal, is, in fact, that the Aqua Centre would be built in three
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1663 compartments, so that in fact, if we wished, one section or both sections could actually be closed off while the third section operated in isolation, so it is possible from a management point of view and a heat control point of view that in fact it could be operated in that sort of manner. The other point I cannot follow with Mr. Gilbey is, on the one hand he is arguing for modest scale development, which is fair enough, but at the same time arguing for an extra large site for this substantial future expansion he is expecting. It seems to me that the two do not link in very —
Mr. Gilbey: Expansion in the future when we are all dead. (Laughter)
Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, there are quite a number of points which have been raised but, as it is getting late, I will not go through all the points now, simply to remind members that as far as we are concerned this is a top priority of the Tourist Department, it has the full unanimous backing of the Sports Council and of the Sports Review Committee. It is simply, as far as we are concerned, the first stage of the development of our policy and then our facilities. I would remind members again that what I am asking you today is to receive the report, approve the £1/4 million for the design fees for the Aqua Centre and allow us to take the recommendations away for formulating and involving in our future programme of capital expenditure and policy development. In total we are asking; we are not committing you to anything. On all these points we will have to come back to Tynwald again before we can take the next step, but I would urge hon. members first of all to reject all the amendments that have been put down today; that is not to say that it will not go to the King George V Park — it may well end up there — but what I am asking is to simply approve the resolution as printed to give us the flexibility to look at the proposals again after today. Your Excellency, this is a vision that we are offering the Court today — vision has been mentioned a number of times; it is the first time it has been presented in the context of developing sport and leisure on the Isle of Man. This is the first major opportunity that Government has had to show quite clearly its commitment to our young people, to our tourists, to our sports people, to show that what they have said at the hustings from time to time in this Court actually means something, that they are prepared at long last to put their votes where their mouths have been for the last couple of years (Members: Hear, hear.) and this is what I am looking for this afternoon, Your Excellency. In fact, if we support this resolution today I am quite sure it will reassure a lot of people outside that this Government, this new Tynwald, is in fact committed to a prosperous and caring society, that we place caring and prosperity in terms other than financial, that we are prepared to look after the quality of life for our people as well as their financial needs. Your Excellency, I beg to move.
The Governor: Hon. members, I will put to you first the three amendments in the reverse order in which they were seconded. I will then put to you the main motion in three parts. So first I put to you the amendment in the name of the member for Douglas South, Mr. Duggan, which requests the Department of Tourism and Transport to site the national sports centre at King George V Park, Douglas. Will hon. members in favour of that amendment say aye; those against say no.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried T1664 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys:-
For: Mr. Quine, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, Kermode, Cain and Mrs. Hannan — 6
Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Corrin, Brown, May, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kneale, Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Karran, Leventhorpe, L.R. Cretney and the Speaker — 16
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with six votes being cast in favour and 16 votes against.
In the Council:-
For: Mr. Barton and Mr. Luft — 2
Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Radcliffe, Quirk, Irving and the President of the Council — 6
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council two votes cast in favour and six votes against; the amendment therefore fails to carry and I put to you the second amendment, which is the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Douglas West, Mr. Cain, which deletes paragraph (2). Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys:-
For: Messrs, Gilbey, Quine, Corrin, Cain and Leventhorpe — 5
Against: Messrs. Cannan, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs Duggan, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Karran, L.R. Cretney and the Speaker — 17
The Speaker: Your Excellency, that amendment also fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with five votes being cast in favour and 17 votes against.
In the Council:-
For: Mr. Barton — 1
Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Radcliffe, Quirk, Irving, Luft and the President of the Council — 7
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council one vote cast in favour and seven
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1665 votes against. That amendment therefore also fails to carry. I now put to you the last of the three amendments which stands in the name of the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, requesting that the sports centre be reconsidered for St. John's. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys:-
For: Messrs. Gilbey, Quine, Corrin, Mrs. Delaney, Mr. Duggan and Mrs. Hannan —6
Against: Messrs. Cannan, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Brown, May, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Karran, Leventhorpe, L.R. Cretney and the Speaker — 16
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with six votes being cast in favour and 16 votes against.
In the Council:-
For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Radcliffe, Quirk, and the President of the Council —4
Against: Messrs. Lowey, Barton, Irving and Mr. Luft — 4
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council, four votes cast in favour and four votes cast against; I therefore, as is constitutional, exercise my casting vote in favour of the decision that was taken in the House of Keys. That amendment therefore also fails to carry. Now I will put to you the main resolution unamended. First of all at item 6(1) will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Item 6(2) — will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys:-
For:Messrs. Cannan, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Mr.Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Karran, L.R. Cretney and the Speaker — 17
Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Quine, Corrin, Cain and Leventhorpe — 5
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys sir, 17 votes being cast in favour and five votes against.
Sports Review Committee Report — Debate Concluded — Motion Carried TI666 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
In the Council:-
For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Radcliffe, Quirk, Irving, Luft and the President of The Council — 7
Against: Mr. Barton — 1
The Governor: Hon. members in the Council, seven votes cast in favour and one against, item 6(2) therefore carries in both branches. Item 6(3) — will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Hon. members, for the record, that is the second debate in two days which has lasted for approximately five hours, has been addressed by 25 hon. members whose average speech lasted 12 minutes. (Laughter)
FIRE PRECAUTIONS ACT - REFERRED TO A SELECT COMMITTEE FOR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT — DEFINITE MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
The Governor: Now, hon. members, I have received notice from the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, that he wishes to move the immediate discussion of a definite matter of urgent public importance in accordance with Standing Order 54(5). His motion has already been placed before you. Are there four members who will support the hon. member by rising in their seats?
Mr. Gilbey, Mrs. Hannan, the Speaker and Mr. Quirk rose in their places.
The Governor: Thank you, hon. members. Now, hon. members, without debate we have to decide whether or not we wish this matter to be debated, and I think all I would allow myself to say, if I may, is that allowing it to be debated does not necessarily mean, of course, that we have to go right over the ground again because if you say 'aye' to me then I take it that you are in favour of the motion and I will then call an election.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I wish to move an amendment to the resolution as under Standing Orders.
The Governor: Fine. So, hon. members, there it is. The motion is put to you as on the order paper; there is to be no debate. I ask hon. members, will those in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. So in accordance with Standing Order 54(5) I call on Mr. Corrin to move.
Mr. Corrin: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald appoints a Select Committee to investigate and report on all aspects of the Fire Precautions Act 1975.
Fire Precautions Act — Referred to a Select Committee for Investigation and Report — Definite Matter of Urgent Public Importance TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 TI667
Your Excellency, in moving this I am not so sure that anything I could say would be useful to add to the reason why I have moved it, if that makes sense. There has been a lot of paperwork going round on this subject. There was a lot of difficulty in this hon. House yesterday at Question Time and I feel that now it is a proper way to be dealt with this subject that leave it to the Select Committee to sort out and report to this hon. House as to what the position is and perhaps point the way as to how it should be resolved or whatever the committee thinks fit. Your Excellency, I do not think there is anything I could add to that.
The Governor: I look for a seconder.
The Speaker: I beg to second, Your Excellency, and in so doing I would say there have been a lot of suggestions bandied about the Court in the course of the last two days; I would hope that this resolution will not result in debate but really will allow the committee to get on with its job without further intrusion on the Court's time. Your Excellency, I formally second.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, obviously I totally support the hon. member's resolution. It seems positive thinking. Your Excellency, I have a short amendment to move; because of the circumstances of one of the parties involved in this I wish to move a small amendment:
That the committee report back to this hon. Court at the July sitting of Tynwald.
Otherwise, Your Excellency, it could be anything up to a year before we get down to any solution of the problem which is so eminent for those particular people, and I ask hon. members for their courtesy and kindness in supporting such an amendment.
Mrs. Hannan: I beg to second, Your Excellency.
Mr. Lowey: Yes, I rise too to support the amendment to it. I have every confidence in the ability of the Court to look at it in a rational way and to come up with the right answers. The facts are there and I am quite sure from the Home Affairs Department and the Fire Department, we welcome the initiative by the hon. member for Rushen and by the amendment moved by the hon. minister and member for East Douglas and I am sure it will be resolved.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, to raise a point. I do not want to debate the merits of this, but it seems an important point is missing from the resolution — that is, it does not say anything about taking action to help any person who may have been hurt by what happened, and it seems to me, if that is not put in, they ought to recommend action —
Mr. Delaney: Sorry, Your Excellency, can I just read out to the member?
The Governor: Yes, what you have asked for, Mr. Delaney, is 'and report to Tynwald at the July sitting with recommendations'. If we wish to add with
Fire Precautions Act — Referred to a Select Committee for Investigation and Report — Definite Matter of Urgent Public Importance T1668 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 recommendations as to what...
Mr. Gilbey: Well, can we ask the Clerk if it does cover it?
The Governor: Yes, please, Clerk address us. Does it cover the point which the member for Glenfaba has just made about recompense or help?
Mr. Gilbey: Basically, if I could explain to the learned Clerk, Your Excellency, under this wording it just says, 'report on the actions taken'. It does not talk at all about helping anyone or proposing to do anything for anyone who may have suffered, and knowing that with Select Committees you cannot move outside the wording proposed, it seems to me vital that the wording should legally be adequate to cover any recommendations to help any individual who may have been adversely affected if there was such a person.
The Governor: Are you therefore proposing such words...
Mr. Gilbey: I would ask the learned Clerk through you Your Excellency, if this wording would cover... if the committee would be allowed by law...
Mr. Delaney: Would my amendment cover it, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk: Your Excellency, I would agree that it did not, because I think the recommendations relate to the earlier part of the proposed motion, sir. I am in some difficulty to know how a Select Committee of Tynwald actually could recompense —
The Governor: Recommend — recommend remedial measures or something like that?
Mr. Gilbey: Yes, well, recommend measures to alleviate any injustice that may have been made, or caused,
The Governor: I take that as a second amendment and we will vote separately on it. Here is the amendment which you have already passed and seconded which I will ask you to vote on. The second amendment, which we can refine in words while the debate continues if we have got time, is to the effect that 'recommend measures which would alleviate any hardship' and I would ask you to vote separately on that. Does any other hon. member wish to speak?
Mr. Luft: Your Excellency, I feel that to allow 20 days before the 12th July for any committee to report on all aspects of the Fire Precautions Act and the actions taken under it in relation to it is a very tall task. I feel the resolution should be restricted to the point which was before the Court as to whether there should be any recomended-recompense to those who have been injured by what has happened. If we take it as it stands, it will take two or three months to have a proper report, Your Excellency.
The Governor: I have not had a seconder for Mr. Gilbey's proposal, does any
Fire Precautions Act — Referred to a Select Committee for Investigation and Report — Definite Matter of Urgent Public Importance TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1669
hon. member wish to second?
The President of the Conn I wish to second, Your Excellency.
Mr.Walker: Yes, Your Excellency, I will be pleased to second Mr. Gilbey's recommendation. I certainly understand the dilemma, I think, in the point made by His Honour Mr. Luft and li would have thought that if the committee appointed reported back within 28 days', on the point raised by His Honour, they can then take the rest of the summer to look at the Fire Precautions Act if they think that is necessary, but they can come back and recommend that to the Court next month. I would have thought, Your Excellency, the way is clear forward. We all want this looking at and, if there ha been an injustice done, that recommendation ought to come to this Court in as soon as possible time. As far as the other aspects of the resolution by my hon. colleague Mr. Corrin are concerned, I think if that was reported back in October, I am sure that would meet the wishes of this House.
The Governor: Can I be clear, hon. members, that the second amendment which is 'measures to alleviate' has a, time frame — that is July? — I am looking at Mr. Walker for confirmation of this; the second amendment, measures to alleviate, if it can be agreed, has a time frame of July whereas the original proposal has no time frame and Mr. Delaney' amendment which we may not now under —
Mr. Delaney: I will leave, that now.
The Governor: Fine, if yob are happy to withdraw.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Luft has made it quite clear, I think, exactly what is required for members of the Court. '
The Governor: Then I think I understand. Does any other hon. member wish to speak?
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, could you make it clear what -
The Governor: Yes, I will. We have before us on the Order Paper an amendment in the name of Mr. Corrin which calls for a Select Committee to investigate and report on all aspects of the Fire Precautions and gives no time frame on it. In addition we have an amendment between the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey, and with comments by His Honour that there is a need earlier, seconded by Mr. Walker, for some comments on measures to alleviate, if appropriate, which should have a time frame on it of the July sitting. Those are the proposals.
Mr. Cannan: I think the bads of this is to look into the matter which was raised yesterday and which is the Marlborough Hotel, and I think, sir, that we want to be careful, with the wording so that we get it right, that the Select Committee, while they look into this, but in particular investigate the affairs of the Marlborough Hotel and report back on that, and that, I think, is the wish of the House, sir, and it is that you have a substantive motion and further to that, to be added on by
Fire Precautions Act — Referred to a Select Committee for Investigation and Report — Definite Matter of Urgent Public Importance T1670 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 amendments, and it is that the Select Committee report back to the House by the next sitting of Tynwald in the circumstances relating to the Marlborough Hotel, and I think that that is what the wish of this Court is about.
The Governor: We will just observe a short pause, hon. members, while the learned Clerk puts that down in writing, please, if he has understood it! May I try again, hon. members? Thanks to the learned Clerk and the learned Attorney may we try this on you, that Mr. Corrin's proposal, which is without a time frame, should be 'that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to investigate and report on all aspects of the Fire Precautions Act 1975'. And the second is an additional amendment to add 'That also the Select Committee should report by the July sitting of Tynwald on the particular case of the Marlborough Hotel and measures to alleviate the hardship therein'. Before you speak, Dr. Orme, have I got what you were saying over here? Yes? Whether you approve of it or not is another matter — have I understood you?
Mr. Gilbey: Yes, I am happy to withdraw my wording in favour of the wording you have now brought out, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Right. Dr. Orme.
Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, may I make a point that in considering only one situation we are placing ourselves in a very dangerous situation, in my view? There is another hotel that was in an identical situation to the Marlborough originally and has accepted an offer subsequently, and there are other hotels that might be in similar circumstances. I think in mentioning specific instances we are being very unwise and I think it should be without any specific reference to any specific situation.
The Governor: However, that is contrary to the views that have been put over here and I find some difficulty in reconciling... the only way for us to do this is to stick to our Standing Orders. Dr. Orme, can I ask you to put an amendment if you have one? Mr. Kneale.
Mr. Kneale: I was going to express the same views as Dr. Orme, because I feel that we are getting into a silly situation by mentioning individual cases.
Mr. Delaney: There is only one case, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Well, there are different views, clearly, on this point.
Mr. Delaney: There is only one case.
The Governor: I think the answer. is to put the amendment and let it be voted upon. Does any other hon. member wish to speak before I call for a reply?
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I am just wondering if one way to overcome this
Fire Precautions Act — Referred to a Select Committee for Investigation and Report — Definite Matter of Urgent Public Importance TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1671 would be to agree to the first part of the resolution from the hon. member Mr. Corrin and that the second part read
`That the Select Committee report back to the Court in July as to whether any alleviation of any hardship is required' and leave it wide open like that, and I would move that.
The Governor: Thank ybu. Hon. members, we are in danger, in trying to do our business quickly, of getting into a muddle although I think we are very nearly there. What I would proposp is that we adjourn for ten minutes — that is until a quarter to — and we ask the hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Brown, to put that in writing so that I can read it to you and I will then look for a seconder, and the initial motion.will stand by having a full stop at '1975' and we, with Mr. Corrin's agreement, will take out the last two lines of his motion. Are you happy with that Mr. Corrin?
Mr. Corrin: Yes, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Thank yoti. The Court adjourns until a quarter to.
The Court adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
FIRE PRECAUTIONS ACT — DEBATE CONCLUDED — AMENDED MOTION APPROVED The Governor: Hon. members, may we now try to bring this subject to a conclusion? If you will take, please, your original paper and put number (1) at the beginning of the paragraph and a full stop after '1975' and take out 'and the actions taken under it' right to the end of 'officials'. You are now being handed what is proposed to be number (2) 13sragraph which is put forward by Mr. Brown. It has not yet been seconded; I will ask in a moment for a seconder and you will see that those are words to be added. While that is proceeding — has every member got one now? Yes. The hon. member for Castletown wanted to say something more? No?
Mr. Brown: No, thank you, Your Excellency, I think the basis of this amendment covers and I hot:16 will satisfy members that we will be able to proceed as we would wish.
The Governor: Thank you (very much.
Mr. Kneale: I beg to second, sir. The Governor: Thank you:, Mr. Leventhorpe? Mr. Leventhorpe: I was going to second, Your Excellency. The Governor: Thank you, hon. member. Does any other hon. member wish to speak? Does the mover wish to reply? Mr. Corrin.
Fire Precautions Act — Debate Concluded — Amended Motion Approved T1672 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
Mr. Corrin: No, I am very happy with the situation, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Well then, I will put to you first the amendment which will if passed become para. (2). Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I then put to you the motion under 54(5) in the name of the member for Rushen, paragraphs (1) and (2) — that is, as amended. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. It is therefore necessary to appoint a committee — three people? Is that right?
Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, perhaps members who are in an involved department should not sit on the committee.
It was agreed.
The Governor: Thank you. I look for nominations.
Messrs. Brown, Corrin, L.R. Cretney, Luft and Quine were proposed and seconded.
The Governor: Thank you. We have five members for three places. Is that enough?
Mr. Kneale: Let it be five, sir.
A Member: I will second that.
The Governor: Moved and seconded. Can we afford the time, hon. members? Yes? It has been proposed that there should be five and seconded. Is everybody agreed, hon. members?
It was agreed.
The Governor: Then we have Mr. Corrin, the member for Rushen, His Honour Arthur Luft, the member for Council, Mr. Brown, the member for Castletown, Mr. L. R. Cretney, the member for Onchan and Mr. Quine, the member for Ayre. Is that agreed, hon. members?
It was agreed.
PROCEDURAL
The Governor: Thank you. Now, hon. members it is past the time when I must consult you if we are to go on. Is there a feeling in the Court that we should proceed with item 7?
The Speaker: Your Excellency, is it not within the bounds of possibility to wipe
Procedural TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1673 out the Agenda in half an hour?
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, can we not move on to deal with as many as we possibly can and those that need to be moved, then we...
The Governor: We have•tried that before and it did not meet with widespread approval. I actually did not hear Mr. Speaker. Are you saying we should try and complete it within half an hour?
The Speaker: I was suggesting, sir, that it is quite possible to eliminate every item here that is for consideration within half an hour.
NOBLE'S HOSPITAL ENERGY CONSERVATION, PHASE 2 — EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Let us try. Item 7, Noble's Hospital, Energy Conservation, Phase 2.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
That Tynwald -
(1) approves of the Department of Health and Social Security incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £240,700 in connection with Phase 2 of the Energy Conservation Scheme at Noble's Hospital;
(2) authorises Treasury to expend out of capital moneys during the year ending 31st March 198 a further sum not exceeding £10,000, this being in addition to the sum of £200,000 as indicated in the Treasury Capital Estimates;
(3) approves of and sanctions borrowings not exceeding £10,000 being made by Government, such borrowings to be repaid within a period of 20 years.
The Governor: Is that agreed, hon. members?
It was agreed.
NON-TYNWALD MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES ETC. (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCES) ORDER 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 9. Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
Noble's Hospital — Energy Conservation, Phase 2 — Expenditure Approved Non-Tynwald Members of Committees Etc. (Attendance Allowances) Order 1988 — Approved T1674 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
That the Non-Tynwald Members of Committees Etc. (Attendance Allowances) Order 1988, made by the Governor in Council on 11th May 1988, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (REQUIREMENTS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 11. Social Security.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
That the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 1988, made by the Department of Health and Social Security on 27th May 1988, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
LOCH MALLOW WATERCOURSE - MAP DETERMINING CATCHMENT AREA — APPROVED
The Governor: I have left out items 10 and 12. As you will remember, I told you yesterday they have to be left out. Item 13, Land Drainage Act 1934.
Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
Whereas
(a) on 15th October 1985 Tynwald approved a map showing that part of the channel and banks of the Loch Mallow watercourse to be treated as the main river for the purposes of the Land Drainage Act 1934;
(b) in accordance with Section 9 of the Act of 1934 the department has caused to be published in two newspapers printed and published in the Island a notice stating that tilt. map has been prepared and specifying the place at which this map may be inspected, with the time not being less than one month within which the manner in which objections thereto may be made; and
Supplementary Benefit (Requirements)(Amendent) Regulations 1988 — Approved Loch Mallow Watercourse — Map Determining Catchment Area — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1675
(c) no objection to the map has been received -
Now therefore Tynwald resolves that this map be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
SILVERBURN RIVER - MAP DETERMINING CATCHMENT AREA — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 14 by the same title.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
Whereas -
(a) on 7th July 1948 Tynwald approved a map showing that part of the channel and banks of the Silverburn River to be treated as the main river for the purposes of the Land Drainage Act 1934;
(b) in accordance with Section 9 of the Act of 1934 the Department has caused Ito be published in two newspapers printed and published in the Island a notice stating that the map has been prepared arid specifying the place at which this map may be inspected, with the time not being less than one month within which the manner in which objections thereto may be made; and
(c) no objection to the map has been received -
Now therefore Tynwald resolves that this map be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
HIGHWAY DIVERSION (ANDREAS) (No.1) ORDER 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 15. Highways Act 1986.
Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I beg to move - ] Silverburn River — Map Determining Catchment Area — Approved Highway Diversion (Andreas) (No. 1) Order 1988 — Approved] ■
T1676 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
That the Highway Diversion (Andreas) (No. 1) Order 1988, made by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties under the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Highways Act 1986, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
CRIMINAL LEGAL AID ORDER 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 16. Criminal Legal Aid Act 1986. I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
That the Criminal Legal Aid Order 1988, made by the Treasury on 25th May 1988, be and the same is hereby approved.
Your Excellency the Criminal Legal Aid Order 1988 — hon. members will recall that when I last spoke to an order specifying fees to be paid to advocates representing defendants in criminal proceedings in December last, I said that the order increased the majority — and I repeat the word, majority — of fees paid to the same level as those paid in the United Kingdom. This order, which was made after consultation with their Honours the Deemsters, completes that exercise. If this order before you for approval today is approved, fees payable to Manx advocates for criminal legal aid matters will in future be linked to part of the U.K. scale of fees. In addition to restructuring the scale of fees the order increases the level of fees paid to the same level as has been paid in the United Kingdom from 1st April 1988, an average increase of 5.4 per cent. which is estimated to cost in the region of £3,000. Now that the fees payable to Manx advocates are linked to those payable to their United Kingdom counterparts, it is anticipated that the delays which used to occur in reviewing the Manx scale of fees can be substantially reduced and that the troubles which have beset the legal aid service in recent years can be resolved. Your Excellency, in general terms I have to say that it is to be hoped that the members of the legal profession now that they have achieved parity with their United Kingdom counterparts, will acknowledge their responsibility to those persons afforded legal aid and provide a level of service which is of the highest standard. I beg to move, sir.
Mr. Radcliffe: 1 beg to second, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Thank you, Mr. Radcliffe. Mr. Karran.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, all I would like to know is, how does this come about? Is it true that there is only about ten lawyers that are prepared to do legal aid work and how many others are there in total and how many actually will do
Criminal Legal Aid Order 1988— Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1677 legal aid work at the present time? I am just interested and disturbed at the legal profession's so-called social 'conscience that will not represent the less fortunate in our community, and I just wanted it to be highlighted in this Court what the position was, why this order has had to come about and the numbers of lawyers that will do legal aid work and the numbers of lawyers there is in total.
Mr. Cretney: Yes, Your ; Excellency, on the same point it has been alleged to me that there are a number of lawyers who are reluctant to undertake this criminal legal aid work at the presentitime, and I wish to know whether it is considered by the Treasury that it should be, as it appears to me to be at the basis at the moment, there is an informal arrangement where lawyers are supposed to, in turn, take on criminal legal aid cases but appear reluctant to do so whereas the work appears to be undertaken by only a tiew lawyers and I wonder, is it envisaged that if this problem carries on it will be made a requirement for those involved in the legal profession to take on criminal legal aid in a more formalised basis.
Mr. Kermode: Your Excellency, I was just wondering whether there is something a little bit deeper in the two hon. members' comments when you consider that a practising lawyer who also does legal aid work is actually the Secretary — or was the Secretary — of the Labour party.
The Speaker: I welcome the hon. mover's comments, Your Excellency, or at least the hopes he expresses that this increase will result in an adequate standard of representation. I wondered, when he referred to the U.K. equivalent pay, sir, of Manx advocates, just what is the U.K. equivalent? Is he referring to solicitors or barristers and could he inform us as to whether or not, when a Deemster is making this recommendation, express themselves as satisfied with the standard of representation in the Manx courts in these cases?
The Governor: Does any Other hon. member wish to speak before I call on the minister to reply? I do.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, this matter has caused me and the Treasury some considerable concern. The fact,is that there are only about 20 advocates on the panel willing to undertake criminal legal aid work, and of those 20 that were on the panel only about eight actually did :so. The Deemsters were as concerned as the views expressed in this Court that perhaps the number of lawyers coming forward to do legal aid was restricted by the, views presented of the Law Society that they were not getting right and proper remuneration. It is my view, having spoken to some officers of the Law Society, that now that there is proper remuneration, parity of remuneration, that they will be forthcoming in taking on legal aid, and that is why I stated in my final words that it is my fervent hope that now that the parity is in place they too will honour their obligations by doing criminal legal aid and making their contribution, like others, to the welfare of the comunity.
The Governor: I put to yoh, hon. members, the motion standing in the name of the Minister for the Treasury, item 16 on the Agenda paper. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those agaihst say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
Criminal Legal Aid Order 1988— Approved TI678 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
MERCHANT SHIPPING (PILOTS LADDERS AND HOISTS) REGULATIONS 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 17. Merchant Shipping Act 1985.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
That the Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders and Hoists) Regulations 1988, made by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties in exercise of powers conferred on the department by Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1985, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
FREE ZONE (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS (APPLICATION) ORDER 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 18. Customs and Excise Acts (Application) Act 1975.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
That the Free Zone (Amendment) Regulations (Application) Order 1988, made by the Treasury on 1st June 1988, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
ELECTRICITY (OVERHEAD LINES) REGULATIONS 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 19. Electricity Act 1984.
Mr. May: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
That the Electricity (Overhead Lines) Regulations 1988, made by the Department of Industry on 3rd June 1988, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
Merchant Shipping (Pilots Ladders and Hoists) Regulations 1988 — Approved Free Zone (Amendment) Regulations (Application) Order 1988 — Approved Electricity (Overhead Lines) Regulations 1988 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988 T1679
SUPERANNUATION ;(HARBOUR POLICE CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES) SCHEME 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 20. Superannuation Act 1984.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Exdellency, 1 beg to move - • That the Superdnnuation (Harbour Police Civilian Auxiliaries) Scheme 1988, made by the Civil Service Commission on 9th May 1988, be and the same is hereby apprbved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
SUPERANNUATION (CORONERS) ORDER 1988 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 21 Illy the same name. I call upon the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission to move item 21.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I beg to move
That the Superannuation (Coroners) Order 1988, made by the Civil Service Commission on 9th May 1988, be and the same is hereby approved.
This order has been made by the Civil Service Commission as a follow-up to the discussions between Your Excellency and the four Coroners, who have for some time been pressing for penSionable status so far as their salary which is paid by Government is concerned, which seems only fair and reasonable. These officials are not, of course, civil servants and after consultation with the Attorney-General's office it was agreed that the post practical method of providing a superannuation scheme was to amend Part II of Schedule 1 of the Superannuation Act 1984 so as to add Coroners to the list of officials deemed to be civil servants for superannuation purposes. I am sure that all hon. members will agree that it is far easier to use an existing scheme than to setap a completely new one or to go out into the private sector and start organising Special individual pensions. Membership of the scheme will be voluntary and the Coroners will also be able to make private personal arrangements in respect of their additional salary which comes in the form of fees and commission not paid by the Government, because the Coroners get two levels of, remuneration; one is from the Government, the other is in respect of fees or commissions for the duties they carry out. The pension covered here is purely in respect of the part of their remuneration coming from central Government. They may, alternatively, opt not to join the scheme but to make personal pension arrangements in respect of their total earned income. The order which is before the Court will, if approved, come into operation on 5th July 1988 to coincide with the date of the appointment of the Coroners. Your Excellency,
Superannuation (Habour Police Civilian Authorities) Scheme 1988 — Approved Superannuation (Coroners) Order 1988 — Approved T1680 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE, 1988
I beg to move.
Mr. Quine: I beg to second, Your Excellency.
Mr. Karran: I just wanted to know how they came to the position of... how they worked out the pension scheme, and that was what I was wondering — how can they justify a pension scheme on the money that comes in from the general public?
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? Do you wish to reply?
Mr. Gilbey: Well, Your Excellency, I hope that my initial remarks did cover it, but basically —
Members: Yes, yes. (Laughter)
The Governor: I put to you, hon. members, the motion at item 21 on the Agenda Paper. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
ISLE OF MAN LOCAL WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE - MR. KARRAN ELECTED MEMBER
The Governor: Item 22. Isle of Man Local War Pensions Committee appointment of one member. Executive Council have recommended Mr. Karran. Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
The Governor: Hon. members, that concludes our business. I congratulate the Court on the expedition with which they handled the last ten items. (Laughter) The Council will now retire and leave the Keys to transact such business as Mr. Speaker may place before them.
The Council withdrew.
HOUSE OF KEYS ••• The Speaker: Hon. members of the House of Keys, the House will now adjourn and stand adjourned until Tuesday next, 28th June, at 10.30 in our own Chamber. Thank you.
The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.
Isle of Man Local War Pensions Committee — Mr. Karran Elected Member House of Keys