REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT (DEBATES AND OTHER MATTERS) Douglas, Wednesday, 20th March 2002 at 10.30 a.m. Present: The President of Tynwald (the Hon N Q Cringle). In the Council: The Lord Bishop (the Rt Rev Noël Debroy Jones), the Attorney-General (Mr W J H Corlett QC), Hon Mrs C M Christian, Messrs E A Crowe, J R Kniveton, E G Lowey, Dr E J Mann, Messrs J N Radcliffe and G H Waft, with Mrs M Cullen, Clerk of the Council. In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon J A Brown) (Castletown); Mr D M Anderson (Glenfaba); Hon A R Bell and Mr L I Singer (Ramsey); Mr R E Quine OBE (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Mrs H Hannan (Peel); Hon S C Rodan (Garff); Mr P Karran, Hon R K Corkill and Mr A J Earnshaw (Onchan); Mr G M Quayle (Middle); Messrs J R Houghton and R W Henderson (Douglas North); Hon D C Cretney and Mr A C Duggan (Douglas South); Hon R P Braidwood and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Hon A F Downie and Hon J P Shimmin (Douglas West); Mr D J Gelling (Malew and Santon); Hon J Rimington, Mr Q B Gill and Hon Mrs P M Crowe (Rushen); with Mr M Cornwell-Kelly, Clerk of Tynwald. The Lord Bishop took the prayers. Young People in Care — Definite Matter of Urgent Public Importance — Debate Commenced The President: Now, hon. members, last evening we had completed item 4 on the order paper. As you are aware, item 3, the hyperbaric chamber, was withdrawn, but I have had notice from Mr Houghton who wishes to move a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 2.8. Hon. members, we will require four to stand with him. (Four members stood in their places.) Thank you. In that case I will call upon the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, to move the motion which is in his name and, I understand, has been circulated to hon. members. Mr Houghton. Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move under standing order 2.8 that the motion as set out in my name and as circulated amongst those hon. members today be so moved, sir: (1) That Tynwald is of the opinion that the Council of Ministers must implement urgent measures in order to prevent young persons with challenging behaviour from absconding from care establishments; and (2) a select committee of five members be set up to investigate and report, with recommendations, by the July 2002 sitting. The Singer: I beg to second. The President: Hon. member, Mr Singer, seconds. Now, hon. members, are we happy about that? Those in favour that the motion should be moved, please say aye; against, no. Accepted, so Mr Houghton, continue with your motion, sir. Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President, and I am very grateful for the indulgence of this hon. Court this morning. At about 11.15 last Friday night, a police motor patrol vehicle came upon a vehicle being driven erratically in Peel Road, Douglas. There were four young people on board and the vehicle accelerated away at high speed. It travelled towards Foxdale via Spring Valley and Braaid. At the Eairy Dam the vehicle went out of control and nearly crashed. The vehicle travelled through Foxdale up onto the shoulder road and towards the Sloc. As it reached the Sloc, the vehicle entered a fogbank where the visibility was virtually zero. This did not deter its driver, a 16-year old girl who had no driving licence, from travelling at high speed and completely beyond her capabilities. The standard of driving was dangerous, to say the least, and on numerous occasions it travelled on the wrong side of the road and around blind corners without any regard for other road users. Had any motorist been travelling in the opposite direction there would certainly have been a head-on collision which would almost certainly have led to death. When the vehicle travelled down the Sloc it very nearly left the road on a number of occasions. If this had occurred, there would have been multiple fatalities, sir. At the bottom of the Sloc on the approach to Ballakilpheric junction, a police van had been parked across the road in order to prevent the vehicle from passing. The visibility was clear at the bottom of the Sloc and the police van could be seen from a long distance away. The vehicle slowed down initially and then immediately accelerated towards the police van and rammed it at full speed. The motor patrol police vehicle in pursuit pulled up behind this vehicle, only for it also to be rammed by the offending vehicle, which then had been reversed at speed in order to collide with the police vehicle as heavily as it possibly could. Fortunately, the police officer was not hurt. The police van which was hit first was unattended. Four young people were arrested and were conveyed to police headquarters. The young people, aged between 15 and 16 years, were also uninjured and they all resided in the same care establishment located on the outskirts of Douglas. No further details can be disclosed with regard to this incident for obvious reasons, save to say that the driver’s actions clearly intended to harm police officers and cause maximum damage to both vehicles. The police van, a relatively new vehicle, I understand, has been completely written off and the motor patrol police vehicle has been extensively damaged. This incident is the fourth such incident in a six-month period whereby young persons who have absconded from care have rammed police vehicles in a stolen vehicle. It is the second such incident in just three consecutive weeks. The previous incident involved five young persons, all in care, in another stolen vehicle which, after ramming a police vehicle at speed, went out of control and collided with an innocent motorist travelling in the opposite direction. I have copied a newspaper article to all hon. members which gives accurate details of that particular incident, sir. In last Friday’s incident, the driver was detained over the weekend awaiting a court appearance on Monday. The other three were police station bailed to their care establishment, where they promptly absconded again the next day, and on Sunday, two of them were again arrested in connection with an unrelated matter. Mr President, last weekend was a particularly busy weekend because at another care establishment a riot broke out on Sunday evening resulting in those premises being trashed. Returning to vehicles which are taken without the owners’ consent or stolen the answer in a Keys written question totaled some 30 vehicles which were TWOC - or taken without the owners’ consent - by absconders from care establishments over the last six months. This figure accounts for stolen vehicles directly attributable to absconders. However, I would confidently assume that many more of the 82 vehicles reported stolen during that six-month period were attributable to absconders from DHSS care establishments. In another written answer to a Keys question, the Department of Health and Social Security gives a total of 316 absconders whilst the police have reported some 270 absconders in a six- month period. At weekends, the numbers of young persons absconding from care average between 12 and 15 persons. I would estimate that some 15 young persons are responsible for persistently absconding from care. They all have challenging behaviour and are extremely difficult to control so why are they allowed to roam the streets and get involved in criminal activities when they should be supervised at all times? The hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood, Minister for Home Affairs, stated in the Keys only last week that the police were dismayed about this serious and developing situation. He further reported that one third of police time in the Douglas division alone was spent doing the work that the Department of Health and Social Security are paying their care agencies for. Many young people are entering care establishments with few or no criminal records, and in no time at all they clock up long lists of convictions for serious offences which include assault, assault causing actual bodily harm, burglary, theft, drunken behaviour, organised shop theft, drugs including dealing drugs in care establishments, and are also involved in many other incidents of a very serious nature. These 15 young people are making peoples lives a misery. These people who we are talking about are members of the public who are taxpayers and who look to members of this hon. Court to deal effectively and appropriately with dangerous matters such as this. It is quite clear that the Department of Health and Social Security are out of their depth in containing this very serious matter. Parents of children in care are distressed at what is happening to their children, and I hope no-one will make a cheap remark relating to whether the child should be returned to the parents for better control. These parents are so concerned - those who are responsible parents, that is - that a number of them have formed a pressure group in order to lobby the department and members of Tynwald to have this disgraceful situation remedied as soon as possible. One also wonders about the quality of service within some of the care establishments. In some establishments there are some staff who themselves have criminal records. Some young people are turning up to their educational courses drunk and are clearly incapable of lasting five minutes, let alone all day. This is unbelievable but true and I can prove it. Parents are complaining that staff in care homes are failing to notify them when their child has absconded or even when they have been arrested and are being held in custody. This situation is rather unbelievable but sadly it is quite true. I have circulated a copy of the Attorney-General’s legal draftsman advising on parental rights and how young people can be restrained and kept within the care establishment. As the care agencies have full parental rights on the child it is now a matter for the government to decide whether it has the ability to deal with this worrying and dangerous situation. A worrying statistic I am aware of is that young people in care on the Island clock up as many convictions in three months as their counterparts in London have recorded in some 12 months. It is time to act now before people are killed. These people could include innocent people, because that is certainly what is going to happen if nothing is done to deal with this very serious problem. Hon. members will see that my declaratory motion is set out in two parts. The first part asks the Council of Ministers to act immediately, and I would like to see those persistent absconders held in their units. Now, I do not mean locking them up in a coal shed; I demand that they are kept inside the building with doors and windows secured. When away from the building, sufficient and adequate supervision must be given to these young people at all times and without fail until a five-member committee investigates this matter and reports with recommendations, which is set out in the second part of my motion. Please remember, my proposals only wish to deal with persistent absconders who are a danger to everyone, including themselves. Mr President, hon. members, this is a real emergency. We need to act now before a disaster occurs. Thank you, sir. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell. Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. I am most grateful to the Court this morning for having a little latitude to enable the mover to actually move the motion that is before hon. members, and I know that he has a genuine concern in respect of this and I know it is shared by a number of hon. members here today. Indeed, in my constituency in the last six months we have had some horrendous scenes with those who are under the care of the DHSS residing in various homes on so-called independent with some kind of care scheme, and indeed in parts of my constituency in the last 12 months the neighbourhood felt under siege. Indeed, just four weeks ago a constituent had a phone call from somebody who was looking to find accommodation for a young man who was working on the Island - this was what was said to my constituent - and this lady runs a bed and breakfast establishment and had visitors in her establishment and she has business people coming to stay for two of three days. There was no indication of where the phone call was coming from or who was making the phone call, other than: ‘Do you have accommodation for a young man working in the Isle of Man for a couple of weeks?’ The answer was: ‘No, but I can accommodate him for up to three nights, because that is all I am doing at the moment.’ Within minutes a man arrived at the establishment with a 16- year-old boy, who they were rather concerned about. He checked into his room and after my constituent, looking at the paperwork which is required to be filled in, saw the previous address given as Priory House, straightaway began to make an enquiry with a family member: ‘What is Priory House?’ she asked, and the son informed exactly what Priory House was, what it did, what it was providing, et cetera, and of course she became quite fearful. In the meantime, while this enquiry was taking place, a ladder had been stolen, was put up to the back of the premises and four other young youths were being accommodated through the window of the room where the young 16-year-old boy had just checked into where they began to have a cannabis party. Straightaway, of course, the proprietor was alerted, the youths were told to get out, the young man who checked in had disappeared subsequently and off they went, and a series of phone calls then began. It took me four hours to help those people. We had an emergency number given to us by the ‘careworker’ who had delivered the young boy, a mobile number which was switched off for three hours, and yet we were advised, if we needed any help or if there was any concern, ‘Just do what everybody else does: phone the police and report it, but here is my mobile anyway in case of emergency.’ We could not get him and in the end we had to go through a laborious procedure of phoning all sorts of other establishments, eventually getting through to Priory House, from where they promptly came to remove the young youth who, of course, was already out on the streets and had no idea that he could not return to the premises that night. My constituent refunded all moneys that had been paid for the stay of this young man and did not want any more to do with it. I advised her in the meantime the next morning, to lock up all those rooms which were available and try to lock premises as soon as possible when guests have arrived just in case they try to get back in, and seemingly they did try to get back in, because the ladder reappeared, somebody had been in the room but of course could not get through the door into the overall premises because that door had been locked. That is just one incident. A further incident which had major consequences for my constituency was again an employee of the Priory care people placing two young people in accommodation which had planning for holiday apartments and had subsequently been sold and changed hands, and this was supposed to be a temporary provision - temporary, but of course, because of the reputation of the two young people in there, nobody else would accommodate them anywhere else in the Island. Officers of the DHSS did work hard trying to find appropriate establishments to place these two young people, but as soon as the name was mentioned, ‘Oh, no, no, sorry, no, we can’t help you. I am sorry, we can’t accommodate you.’ That was a nightmare. Those two young people were in my constituency for over four months, and every other night drug parties took place and every other night the police van would arrive at three or four o’clock in the morning, empty out all the young people, and some of them were as young as 14 — 14-year-olds going in and all sorts of drug-taking taking place. They would then empty them out into the van, take them back to police headquarters, check them in, only to have to release them the following day. The following day would be quiet in the neighbourhood then the following night it would all kick off again. Every other night police time was taken up. Again it was outreach type of support for these two young people and, having spoken to some of the employees of Priory House, they were frightened to go in on these occasions and try to calmly disperse these young people and they would have to ring the police to assist them, and we are talking about, on this occasion, two big burly men frightened to take on these young people. I am talking in excess of a dozen individual young people each time this happened. They would nip across to the local newsagents, walk in, fill their sweater, form their sweater or jacket like a bowl, fill it with sweets, the old lady behind the counter was terrified, although she does have a panic button and would press the panic button which would go through to police headquarters, and they would go out. On one occasion during this four-month nightmare, one young boy went over with a gun. Now, later on it was revealed that the gun was a plastic toy gun, but the lady behind the counter was not aware of that. It looked like a real gun as far as she was concerned, and again that was to get tobacco and cigarettes as well as the sweets, and their language was most intimidating. This was regular for four months. It took a lot of my time up. It was shared with my colleague, Mr Braidwood, the other member for Douglas East. The two of us worked day and night to try to get these two young people out of the constituency and accommodated in appropriate accommodation where the necessary help, counselling et cetera could be administered. One of the young people should not have been in the DHSS’s care establishment scheme at all because she was of an age where she is regarded under law as an independent person. She ought to, in hindsight in my view, have been told, ‘Now you are this age, this is your benefit, we will help you find accommodation; try to make a life for yourself’. In the end, of course, that is what did happen: the two were split. The younger went into Priory House and for that particular young person life was ended a very short while ago. She came to a tragic end, but the pattern of that young person’s life I have been aware of for the last 10 years since becoming a town counsellor and for 10 years her behaviour, her attitude, the things that she got up to and others with her steadily went worse with each day. I feel that as a government it is a difficult situation but we have failed; we have failed to address the situation at an early stage. I know it is very complicated. In fact, on Friday I have a case conference, Mr President, with another constituent of mine whose young daughter is in the care of the department and has got worse since she has been there. I am involved on a daily basis with this type of situation. I have two young sons myself, aged 15 and 16, so I am fully aware of how they think, how they feel at this age, what they expect from us. We have systematically failed them and it has to stop now. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) I know it can be frustrating. I know with one young person who had a wonderful bright future and, because of the neglect by the family - very tragic circumstances, very tragic background - it led her into a life of crime and bad behaviour et cetera, and we did at one point send this young person away to a rehabilitation centre in the United Kingdom where progress was being made. It was a very expensive exercise and she was there too short a time, in my view. A little bit longer and we may just have been able to turn that young person, and all the resource both in time, in management, in cost would have been worth it in my view, but it was not done. She returned and within days returned to her old life. Clearly something needs to be done. It needs to be done today to try to nip this in the bud before it gets out of all proportion. It is going to be difficult, and these young people are fully aware of the law; they understand the law and they know just what they can get away with, but they are starting earlier now, at ages 12, 13 and 14. We are not dealing with 16, 17, 18-year-olds or young people in their 20s; they are starting much, much earlier and we need to have an action plan in place not only to look at this situation at the very beginning before it develops in terms of parental guidance, skills, classes, home helps being more of a friend to the family to continue throughout the life of the child and not just whilst the child is still in infancy. Those things, I feel sure, we can put into place, but at the moment we have a huge puddle of problems and all we keep doing is mop it up as much as we can but we have not plugged the leak. The leak is still flowing and it is getting bigger and it is starting sooner. So today is timely for this motion. It is a very, very serious matter. I know the hon. mover has been as involved as those of us who have had these problems in our constituencies - in fact, more so in the last few weeks. He is frightened that with the thieving that is going on at the moment, the theft of cars, the joyriding, the thrill of it - and they do get a thrill out of it, especially if they are going to get chased - someone innocent will be maimed or, worse, killed. It is almost as though they are tempting us because this issue of stealing cars and racing was raised in another place and was referred to by the hon. mover, and that young person went ahead and did it again and again. That particular young person was the one in my constituency on the first case that I referred hon. members to, and I know all his background too. Just last night on my way home I bumped into another constituent of mine who looked very, very tired, and he said to me: ‘Oh, you look tired; have you had a long day?’ and I said: ‘Well, you look more tired than I feel, what have you been up to?’ And he told me that he had been doing some work at Priory House filling in, and I said: ‘You are joking? How are you coping?’ He said: ‘Oh, it is terrible. We just can’t control them. They have gone out on the rob tonight.’ I said, ‘You’re joking!’ He said, ‘No, no, I have just finished, I am home now. They have gone out on the rob tonight, we do not know where they are’ - a sobering thought, Mr President. These are the young people, these are our future generations and we need to do something about it now. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Corkill. Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. I have listened very carefully to the graphic descriptions by the mover of this motion to recent events and his record of those events, and also to the subsequent speaker for East Douglas, Mrs Cannell, describing events that have happened, behaviour which is totally unacceptable and behaviour which, in reading our newspapers, we probably attribute to other places normally, but that is probably wishful thinking because problems with certain young people, a few young people, have been with us for some time. Now, I also, perhaps to the advantage of this Court, recite a story that I am aware of too, and this was relayed to me yesterday in response to the hon. mover’s motion which became public yesterday. This is another story of a knock on the door by the police looking for a young child, a juvenile. The father of the household opened the door and the policeman said they were looking for so and so. ‘Do you know where he is?’ and of course it is a traditional family scenario and the father said, ‘No, I do not know where he is. I know who you mean but I have not seen him for the last few days.’ The door closed, he went upstairs with the father to see his son who was 14, I think, at the time and asked if he knew where so and so was, ‘Only the police have been round trying to find out where he is; he is missing,’ at which point this child crawled out from under his friend’s bed. So we can recite stories, because being young is not very easy in this day and age. The outcome of this was that through Social Services, through the relationship that developed that night, this child has grown up to be a normal citizen because that family befriended someone in need. That is a success story that we never hear of and there needs to be a balance in this discussion: not all of the children in care are bad. Now, I am sure the hon. mover will say he is focusing on a few and I am sure we are all focusing on these very visible few, but we should get things in balance; there are lots of success stories. This father took the trouble to ring me to try and give that balance in respect of a story that he regards as a success. The two children are still friends. This was a family with three children already and a fourth one did not seem to be too much trouble, and in fact it worked out very well. So we can all recount stories but, nonetheless, what I have heard from the hon. mover is shocking - no doubt about that. It is behaviour that is not acceptable in this or any day and age. The issue raised by the mover, I believe, is only one part. It is an important part of the wider issue of dealing with problem children in the community. This is an issue which exercises all of our minds, today and other days, not just those within government but also those outside. I am the first to acknowledge that we have not got the answers as yet. I do not believe the hon. mover of this motion has the answers either - Mr Houghton: I do. Mr Corkill: - but we are seeking the answers. There are, I think, in this debate today two messages which I would like to get across. The first is that government does recognise the problem that we have with some young people, and we are working and have been working over a lengthy period trying to address the problem. Second, we should not delude ourselves by believing that this is a simple issue which can be addressed by a single remedy. There are no easy answers. Indeed, the motion does not offer an answer; it simply calls for something to be done, and that has been repeated several times by the two speakers who have spoken so far, and I would say it is easy to call for something to be done but, as we know, it is a good deal more difficult to identify measures which will work for the long-term benefit of the young people and the community. The fact that this is not a new problem and that we have been endeavouring to respond to the challenge that it presents is evidenced by the following: firstly, the inclusion of new powers in the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 which will be helpful when the Act is fully implemented; secondly, by the construction of the new secure unit which will become available later in the year - I think it is scheduled for July; and, perhaps most of all, by the establishment by the previous government, by the former Chief Minister, Mr Gelling, who produced the Children and Young Persons’ Strategy Committee, and that brings together in one forum all the agencies of government who have an input into this important area of policy. We are in the middle of delivering improvements and new strategies in this whole area. There have been improvements in legislation, there has been capital expenditure and we are working on new strategies. We will see the changes later in the year with the new unit and the ability that that will give us to implement some of the powers in the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. We, today, are having this debate on the threshold of the culmination of some work whose origins go back a number of years. We cannot bring the work forward today but it will give us some more options and we will be better placed to deal with their problems later in the year. As regards finding a solution, we do need to steer away from simplistic notions. It is not an answer simply to lock up troublesome young people. It may provide the community with some temporary relief - and I emphasise, ‘temporary relief’ - but it is that, just temporary, and evidence from elsewhere demonstrates that locking them away does not effect a cure. We are dealing with some very disturbed young people. Their parents are unable to cope, even by locking them up. The schools are not able to cope; the police do not have the answer. Not only are they difficult cases, but each child is different and requires a separate approach, and I do not believe any one solution fits all of them. We should not assume that we will get the answer right in every case. Young people have always been a problem and will always be a problem. It is in the nature of youth to challenge the society in which they live. We can help, steer and guide, we can guide with patience, kindness and firmness, but there will always be an element in our young people who will kick off against society. The answer is not simple and it is not absolute. Because the problem is not a simple one and because there is work going on, I have proposed the amendment which is now being circulated. In the Council of Ministers we are very conscious that this issue is one about which members are genuinely concerned, and they are anxious to respond positively to that concern. What I am therefore proposing on behalf of the Council of Ministers is that we provide a report to Tynwald from our Strategy Committee setting out the options as we see them and we will invite Tynwald’s comments on those options. On the back of the amendment I have circulated a couple of pages which show you the membership, the working group and the remit of the Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee, which is well into its remit, I can tell hon. members. I appreciate that the strategy committee does not have a high public profile and for that reason I have taken the opportunity to circulate these papers today. In looking at this information, members will recognise that all the relevant parts of government are brought together in that committee, and I believe the committee is uniquely positioned to provide the sort of report that Tynwald needs. There are some difficulties for the Court in debating an issue like this, reasonably unprepared and hard on the heels of incidents which have appalled and shocked us all. The proposal for a report by the strategy committee will, I believe, allow a little breathing space but it will provide a written basis for our discussions. That, I think, would be helpful, constructive and that is why this amendment is before us. I beg to move, sir: That all words after “Council of Ministers” be deleted and replaced by - “Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee should identify the options for addressing the problem of young persons with challenging behaviour absenting themselves from care establishments and report back, with recommendations, on those options to Tynwald not later than July 2002.” The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I beg to second that, and in doing so I would make some comments - perhaps I would be expected to have an opinion on this matter as I have a professional background as a probation officer and a social worker. I have supported the hon. member for Douglas North in putting forward this motion but, as I have made clear to him, I do not necessarily share some of his views in responding to some of the problems which have caused him to put this motion today. Furthermore, I know that I am not alone in wishing to have effective strategies in place to respond to the needs and challenges our police, social services, youth workers and many others face on a daily basis. As I say, I know I am not alone in this, and indeed every member of this hon. Court will share such a desire; none of us have a monopoly on social conscience, and indeed none of us have a monopoly on the simple answer to this complex problem. I have some direct experience in these matters and I cannot accept that, as has been alleged, the DHSS is out of its depth, and I would wish to make that extremely clear. I would also suggest that a sense of perspective is this matter is appropriate and necessary. Many members may feel that there has been an element of scaremongering going on, and I have to say that in my experience this is hard to refute. There is a problem with a small number of our young people, certainly, and they do cause a disproportionate amount of harm, damage and distress, and I certainly do accept that, but I would respectively suggest that this has always been the case and the lesson to be learned is the need for a strategic, meaningful response to this situation. I know the former Chief Minister has instigated the Children’s Strategy and the present Chief Minister has continued this welcome initiative. I have supported the hon. member for Douglas North. I know he has genuine concerns about these problems; we all share these concerns, and I hope and fully expect that the Children’s Strategy group will reflect these concerns. I support the hon. member for Douglas North’s right to raise his concerns, but I do not support his contention that we are in crisis. Nor do I support the view that incarcerating children or having them under constant supervision, whatever that would mean - and I would be interested to know if that would mean the children being handcuffed to their carers when they are in the community, for example - is the answer. These are complex matters that need a considered and reasoned response, but there is no simple easy answer. After 17 years in social work I have learned this lesson many times, sometimes the hard way. To conclude with, I thank the hon. member for Douglas North for raising these matters which, I do appreciate, are genuine concerns, but I would further thank the Chief Minister for his previous comments and for his sensible amendment which I will wholeheartedly support. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Rimington. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to congratulate my colleague Mr Gill on what I believe is his maiden speech and his contribution, which I think was very measured and very good on what is a very delicate subject. I do really appreciate his comments that he has made today and I do believe that his constituents and the people of the Isle of Man should be proud of that contribution. Obviously I rise to support the amendment in the name of the Chief Minister, because I believe it is the right and appropriate course that we should take. I was a little concerned - and perhaps might get guidance from other people on this issue - when the mover of the original motion was starting off and introducing his motion, that he gave very specific details from a police report of an incident which has not yet been through the due judicial process. I think it is exceptionally worrying that a member can feel that they can use this Court in that way. Now, we all believe and we all share the concern that people in the community have a right to the protection of their property and they have a right to conduct their lives in a manner undisturbed by people acting in an unlawful, unreasonable and antisocial manner, and that feeling, I am sure, is universally held throughout the Court. But I am very seriously concerned that what we are doing today, or what we might well do today, is head down into what I would call a classic law and order debate where we are going to start banging drums and making what I would consider to be very inflammatory noises. We know that there are serious issues to be addressed. We are aware of those serious issues; everybody has been aware of those serious issues for a long time. Mr Houghton: What have you done about it? Mr Rimington: And indeed previous hon. members of this Court who had responsibility for that area were constantly raising that - the problems, the expenses, the unresolved issues. We are aware of that, and if there were easy and good solutions that we could pull out of the hat to solve that problem, I am sure they would have been out of that hat and in place by now, but it is not that straightforward; it is a complex and very delicate issue that we are dealing with. We do have to take note of the recent tragic events, and that again, I feel, is exceptionally important at this point in time. Those events will have had a serious effect on the group of young people who are now being discussed in this Court, in this public arena (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) in a manner which I do not feel is appropriate at this point in time. Imagine if two members of this hon. Court came to a brutal end, a brutal foreshortening of their lives, as has happened to two young people recently in this Island; we are hopefully sane and considered strong individuals, but that would have had a severe effect on our mood, conduct and deliberations. It would have had an impact on us, and we are strong people. Imagine the effect that it has had on that group of young people, where two of their peers who they knew have had that experience and are involved in that judicial process. And now we are discussing that situation in this public arena at this point. Is this the right time for banging drums? Is this the right time for inflaming public opinion? Should this hon. Court be party to that inflammation of public opinion which unfortunately is taking place outside this Court anyhow? Are we creating the right setting for the very important judicial process that is going to be taking place in response to those tragic events? I believe that it is our responsibility to take the heat out of the situation at this moment in time, to be sensible and considered, to take the inflammation out and not to build it up. (Mrs Crowe: Hear, hear.) Mr President, thank you. The President: Hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. I welcome this debate today because there is no doubt in my mind that lots of people outside of this Court and people who go about their business in a normal way, the majority of people on this Island who have families, who are law- abiding respectable members of the community, do have a lot of concern with regard to a number of issues relating to young people, their time in care and their management in care at this particular moment. I do not think the situation is helped when we see programmes on the TV - BBC and other places - where they vividly show housing estates in the UK where young people are totally out of control, they are doing these doughnuts with cars, it is a regular feature of nightly entertainment and I am absolutely certain it has an adverse effect on young people in general, because the message that it puts out as far as I am concerned, is that is what you do to the law, to responsible society, we do our own thing, as it were. I would love to be able to stand up here today and have an answer to all this. I believe in discipline, I do not think it does any harm. I was brought up in a r≥gime, I suppose, where you did get a smack when you were naughty; you did get the cane in school. I accept that has gone, but what has gone as well are acceptable standards. There is nothing in my opinion now for some of these young people who have fallen by the wayside to set their standards by and, whereas I accept that we no longer beat children any more or cane them in school, if you look at what is happening with young people in general, on the continent they have not chastised their children this way for years but a lot of the continental countries do not have this problem. For some reason they have found the secret of integrating young people into society and we just do not seem to have people who rebel for whatever reason and drop out in the same numbers as we seem to have them in the United Kingdom. I listened this morning to a comment on Manx Radio by the visiting head of the National Union of Teachers, who said that one of the major concerns of people in the teaching profession was the bad behaviour of pupils in school. They are there now from four years of age, so what are we saying? It is not just in the school r≥gime that there is a problem; we know that somewhere along the line there are people who are not acting responsibly, parents of children, they are not brought up now in stable relationships, they can have three or four different father figures in a family and this is no doubt, I suppose, adding to all the various problems that come along when children are being brought up and I think they are adolescents. I think we have got to wise up at some stage. I sadly do not feel that the present system is working. It is not working in the United Kingdom, it is not working in the Isle of Man, and if somebody told me 10 years ago that we would be having 130 to 150 children in care in the Isle of Man 10 years from now at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds a week, I would say you are absolutely joking. But that is the reality, hon. members; that is what is happening now, and where very good funding and resources could be applied to other areas we are sadly having to redirect them into childcare. I am standing up here today and I feel extremely frustrated. Like the hon. member for North Douglas, I can quote a catalogue of serious incidents, but unfortunately I cannot come up with any solutions either, but I will say that I think that to refer this issue to a select committee of Tynwald is really not, in my opinion, the way to provide the answers. There is, as the Chief Minister has pointed out, a very well qualified number of people on the staff working group involved with the Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee and they have the resources and the expertise available, but I think ultimately we are going to have to review what we do in the Isle of Man. I think one of the mistakes that we do make is tend to lump these young people together, or we provide the ones who are the troublemakers and are capable, due to their personalities, of leading other people astray with a ready-made bonfire, and somebody only has to come along and throw the match. I would prefer a system where perhaps we could be encouraging more and more people to become fosterparents on the Isle of Man, and if that means that a person who is willing to do that maybe gave up their job and received some additional remuneration. . . But we need to provide a stable and caring environment for some of these youngsters where they can be with people in a peer group who do know what it is like to be responsible, they want to be key players in a community and do not feel that unless they go out and make a spectacle of themselves there is something to be gained. I talked to a number of police officers and I know that they are becoming totally frustrated with the present situation. I know once the warm weather starts again, we will get back to the same old routine on a Friday and Saturday night where there are crowds of some of these young people drunk or drugged on the streets of Douglas, and then my phone will go on the Saturday morning when they have gone back to their respective establishments, and they leave a trail of damage and vandalism. I have no answers, hon. members, but I think the best way to try and progress this is to go along with the amendment that has been moved by the Chief Minister. It is a very, very serious problem and I know the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran, alluded to this particular type of behaviour some time ago. We have just about got ourselves organised to try and address the drugs situation, and I think that this is one where a lot of time and resources will need to be put into to come up with solutions, but we are pouring money into a bucket at the moment which appears not to have a bottom in it at all and the present solutions, sadly, do not work. I just wish I had the answers, hon. members. The President: Hon. member for Council, Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. I rise to support the Chief Minister’s amendment to this resolution and want to take the opportunity to respond to some of the statements that have been made in the Court. Indeed, I am grateful for the very balanced response that has come from most people who have commented on the resolution in terms of the difficulties that this community has in relation to some very disturbed and troubled young people. Do not suppose that the DHSS does not very well understand the concerns of the public in relation to these young people, particularly that generated by a very small group in care, on a voluntary basis or otherwise. Of course we understand and are very concerned about the potential for damage to themselves and other people in particular, but it is a very complex issue, as has been illustrated, and the department is very cognisant of that. But it is not a DHSS problem on its own. It is a society problem and it was for that reason that the DHSS took steps at the Council of Ministers to have put together the strategy group which is over-arching and interdepartmental in trying to come to grips with the underlying reasons for the sorts of problems that we have to handle. There has been reference to the fact that a small group of people are committing an enormous amount of crime. A lot of allegations and statements have been made. I do not intend to respond to all of those individually, but let us remember why these children are in care: their parents have not been able to cope. Now, I am not going to go into all the reasons behind that; they are many and varied, and sometimes they are the problem, but the fact is that where children are in voluntary care, the department, in terms of restraining them, has only the same authority as their parents had, and the parents signally failed to constrain them. Why, then, do you suddenly imagine that officers and agents of the DHSS have somehow a magic wand which is going to put that right instantly? It simply does not. Nor, indeed, should we be surprised that when children go into care they are sometimes described by their parents as having got worse. It is a recognised fact that sometimes children get worse when put into care. Can you imagine yourself, however difficult your relationship with your family might have been, the impact of your family saying: ‘I can’t manage you anymore, off you go to somebody else’? That has got to have a profound effect. I would also endorse the view that the high profile on this issue is not particularly helpful. The only thing I would say about the resolution is that it is making apparent to the public at large the difficulties that the department is faced with and the difficulties of these young people, but on the other hand I think we have to recognise that most of us who had a conventional upbringing in a caring family where discipline has been exercised and where, when people slightly go off the rails and have been brought back again - and most families have those sort of experiences - it is difficult for us to comprehend why these young people go off the rails in the way that they do, but it is for the professionals and the department to provide care and you cannot turn round a situation which has developed over a number of years in a short period of time, but you can, and the department and its agents do in very many cases over a longer period of time, assist these young people in sorting out their difficulties and put them on the path to becoming ordinary responsible citizens. So let us not take too much concern here that everything the department is doing is failing; it is not, and I need here to defend those people who are doing excellent work with a lot of young people in our Island and putting them on the right road. I have to say also that if hon. members have solutions they have been very few in their suggestions this morning. I suspect one will come from the mover when he winds up, but I am not sure that it is one that is going to actually do much for resolving the problems of these young people. I can accept his concern about the public at large but we have to remember that there is a different perspective from the different agents involved. Where there are legal matters, then the courts have a course of action, but we also need to remember that we are signatories to various United Nations conventions in respect of the right of the child. Mr Downie: So is America, and they have dealt with it. Mrs Christian: I do not know what the hon. member’s comment was about but I take it it has some significance. We, I believe, are trying to honour our responsibilities in respect of the convention. If this group can find some ways of resolving these difficulties I am sure it will suggest them and come forward to this hon. Court. Indeed, the department itself, as hon. members have been told by the Chief Minister, have been looking at the issues of the powers under the Children and Young Persons Bill to see to what extent we can improve the situation in relation to remand into care. Now that may give us, only in the situation where it is a remand from the courts, further powers to restrain. We are also aware that the secure unit, which is not going to be the be-all and the end-all to all of these issues but will be one mechanism for assisting in the process, will come online later this summer. I do not want the Court to take the view that, because the DHSS is responsible for accepting these young people into its care where everybody else has failed, it is somehow going to wave a magic wand and put things right overnight. It does not. Nor indeed, can I accept the view that in every case we dismiss them at the age of 18, as has been suggested by one hon. member. We have to recognise that sometimes they need support beyond that age and in fact it is an area in which we would wish to strengthen the work of the department. I do accept that it is not an easy matter for the public at large to get to grips with. It is one which has become more high profile in the Island since we determined to look after our own problems in our own Island. What we do need to remember is that in the past young people were sent away so we did not see our problems, we conveniently transported them to another place. Now, it is still sometimes appropriate that we do have placements outside of the Island for young people in their own best interests, but let us also bear in mind that some of the young people that our people are caring for are not acceptable in the United Kingdom because they cannot manage them. They will not offer us places because they are not controllable in their situations, and yet here we have the DHSS in the Isle of Man being expected to sort it all out. I know that hon. members, by and large, will have a balanced view on the difficulties that we are faced with here and I know that the children and young persons strategy group is looking at the long-term ways in which to tackle these problems so that we do not reach the stage where, in their teenage years, young people are in such difficulties. I do not imagine we will ever eliminate the problem in its entirety but we are certainly taking steps to try to ensure that such situations are minimized. I hope hon. members will support the amendment, because the resolution in itself gives the task to the Council of Ministers. I do not think that that is the appropriate forum, given that we have in the other group all the professionals who are involved; whether it be from the police side or the education side or the health side, all need to be involved in this issue. Secondly, the second part of the resolution does not say what a select committee would actually have to report on. One assumes that it refers to the first paragraph but does not say so, and I do not think that a select committee would necessarily do anything other than take advice probably from all the parties in the children and young persons group, and I think we can eliminate that duplication of effort by supporting the amendment. The President: Hon. member for Middle, Mr Quayle. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. This morning we have had an opportunity to discuss a matter of great and urgent importance to everybody on the Island. My own constituency has had more than its fair share of problems connected with children with challenging behaviour absenting themselves from care establishments. Indeed, recent tragic events have emphasized the very serious issues that we face. There are no easy answers. If there were, they would have been thought up long before now. I therefore welcome the Chief Minister’s helpful amendment to the motion so that the Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee can continue their hitherto largely unpublicized work and report back with recommendations to the July Tynwald. I think this more adequately addresses the problem than the motion as it originally was put forward, and I would suggest that the committee look further afield than the United Kingdom in the search for appropriate solutions, as these may exist elsewhere. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. I have made a few notes as we have been ploughing through this debate this morning. I do not intend to go through everything but there are some important issues that we need to clarify first. The way I understand the motion as put before us today and the sentiments behind it in part 1 is an order to engender some sort of safe environment as a pro tem emergency measure - in other words, to try to stop the present circumstances where young folk have the ability to absent themselves from care establishments or wherever they are and steal cars, drive them dangerously and kill an innocent member of the public. That is what I see this motion is trying to address but, more importantly, what is trying to be achieved here this morning is to have some sort of interim urgent safety factors applied for the safety of the young people themselves. I do not read this as some sort of extreme measure to incarcerate, handcuff, throw the key away, ‘dumping people’ or whatever else has been used this morning; I see this as a very serious middle of the road attempt to try to solve this situation here. Now, the hon. member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, has illustrated a catalogue of events, and the Minister for Health has said ‘allegations’ but I think most of them are matters on public record; they are there already, it has happened. That is the problem. A year ago the same hon. member was expressing concerns that somebody might die. We are here today when only the other week that happened, and I have also heard comments from hon. members about: ‘Oh, well, young kids, it’s their way of rebelling against society. They have always done it. They have always tested the boundaries. They’ve had a go. . .’ yap, yap, yap. I have done it myself, but there is a pattern emerging now over the last few years, and I can speak with some authority on this too because, like Mr Gill, in my former professional capacity I too have had to deal with this kind of challenging behaviour and it is very, very difficult, but the problem is what you can class as youthful exuberance some time ago and kids playing up or whatever, or ringing doorbells and running off, does not come into the equation any more now and we are seeing a pattern develop that we have never seen before on this little Island, and that is some of the problem too, because we have been cushioned from some of the bigger societies and it is a shock to the system to see the likes of a double murder, drugs parties for 12-year-olds suddenly surfacing in our little society here. Now, that is what people are worried about - the intensity and the nature of things that are happening. Ten years ago, if we stood up here and said, ‘Oh, you had better watch it, a car will be stolen by three or four youngsters of 15 or 16 and they will attempt to ram a police vehicle and try to possibly kill the occupants,’ everybody would have said, ‘That’s a load of rubbish. It will never happen.’ But things are developing: different cultures are occurring now whether we like it or not. There is a drug culture which engenders a whole new way of thinking and responding to situations, and that response is not, as a few years ago, a bit of a bash-up on a street corner; people pull knives now as a first response, and that is why the burly youth workers that Mrs Cannell mentioned were afraid to actually go into an area where there were six or seven young people. I realise that you cannot actually physically apprehend somebody like that, but also, if young people in a drug culture such as what was indicated feel threatened, the first response now is not to say: ‘Okay, right, we’ll give up’; weapons will be drawn and that is the sad reality of it, and that is why those fellows felt uneasy at entering a closed room under those circumstances because they would have definitely been under some sort of physical threat, and I have to say I have been involved in extreme physical violence with young people and it is most, most unpleasant having to deal with somebody like that. At the end of the day, we are talking about a small element, yes, and I do not believe it is Mr Houghton’s intention to spill out ripples across the entire youth of the Isle of Man - far from it. What he is trying to say is that there are some dangerous young folk here and, within that, I feel some of them have a developing pattern that maybe we will not be able to help, some of them will go down the criminal route whether we like it or not, and they will be looking at Victoria Road and we will not be able to save them because they are the way they are, unfortunately, and I have seen it a few times myself and somebody with a repeat offence record, I am not saying we give up on them, but this Court needs to be aware that sometimes that is how they are. Mr Downie: What is causing it? Mr Henderson: Quite often you can look at the causes - the hon. member for West Douglas said, ‘What is causing it?’ Yes, we can go and point at the broken homes and all the rest of it and say, ‘Well, this happened, that happened, the other happened.’ Lots of times you can and you can save people and you can turn folk around. Sometimes, though, you cannot and it needs different methods and medical intervention as well at the end of the day. I do not think we can just explain things away by saying: ‘Oh, well, there have been no solutions offered here this morning’ or ‘There are wider issues’ or ‘There are things in motion now that are going to help this situation later on.’ That is good to hear and I am glad we are hearing it, but I must redirect the hon. Court back to the focussed situation that is under scrutiny here this morning. We have a situation at the minute, whether we like it or not, where young people are able to ‘abscond’, for want of a better word, get away from the care that they are in and get up to all sorts at the minute, and it is up to us to think about what we want to do with that basically. The amendment from the Chief Minister in substance is fair enough. That is similar to part 2 of the motion on the paper, which is working up some sort of solutions, and that is the other thing, I believe, the hon. member, Mr Houghton, is trying to do: safety issues and then back it up with long-term solutions. He has not come here big-headed enough to say, ‘I have got all the answers.’ He has come here to say, ‘Look, we need help. I have been flagging up this for a long time. We don’t want any more of our young people to end up dead’ and I don’t buy the argument about highlighting the issue. I think it needs to be highlighted and I think we still need to send out a positive signal this morning that we are very serious (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) with what is going on this morning, and I do not think it is good enough just to say, ‘Oh, we’ve been aware of it.’ That does not make it all right. If we were aware of it we should have been doing something about it a lot sooner. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) It has been at least two or three years that we have been aware of it and I think we need to get some action now and the way I see it is. . . and I will be guided by the mover as to whether we should go for the amendment, which is unfortunate in some ways, because it superimposes the Chief Minister on top of the genuine concerns that we brought here this morning and it also disregards the immediate - Mr Cretney: Get a resolution. Mr Henderson: Yes, ‘get a resolution,’ says the hon. member for South Douglas. So I am concerned also at the immediate safety factor because the rate of knots in the build-up over the last few weeks - I do not think we can sustain it (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) and in all honesty, hon. members, we need to be looking at that too. The amendment is fine but we need something more in there and we need to show that some responsible action is being generated from this morning’s debate, so God forbid if anything does happen and, as I say, I come from the angle that I do not want another young person to be involved in some mishap. That is what I am worried about and I think we need to put something in place here this morning and then follow on with what the Chief Minister has proposed or in fact part 2 of the motion. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think it is wrong for the hon. member to talk about these young people that have ended up dead in care at the present time. The cases are still ongoing. It is the same as the point by Mr Rimington. I think he is quite right: it is wrong for us to be using stuff that has not been through the judicial system, and I am appalled at that. I think it is wrong that we have all these experts who have said this and said that and we have heard this issue of being genuinely concerned. I think we all are genuinely concerned about this issue. One of the things I am glad to see is that we are going to have a secure unit, which is long overdue, and I think this debate really expresses the concerns that some of us have had for many years about it becoming just another political football. That is the problem that we have had over this issue for far too long. When we talk about the genuineness of concerns, we see it in different ways in the hon. House. I know that we have got the problems we have got was because it was a political football back when we set up social services back in the late 1980s. We hear these members talking about these kids absconding; if they are in a juvenile justice unit, they are absconding; if they are in a therapeutic unit which is a replacement for their home, they are not absconding. That is their home and that is what people have got to realise, and until they make that bridge over to the juvenile justice unit - and unfortunately it has not happened until now that we are getting one which is long overdue - people are misleading themselves either genuinely or on purpose. (A Member: Rubbish!) When social services were set up, there were the political footballs. There was the fact that we had to use the particular building because the then Chief Secretary and Chief Minister had designed the thing and within ten years we wanted to get rid of it. We told you then and I am glad now that we are seeing there has to be this separation of juvenile justice away from therapeutic childcare responsibilities, because we saw the problems that we could not employ the right staff at the time because it would affect the government man-head counts, so instead of us getting the staff to run a juvenile justice unit and a therapeutic unit we had another political football, another political compromise over the subject, so we made a pig’s ear of that. What I am concerned about today is one thing we do not want is just another political football, a knee-jerk reaction and we do not actually look at the real issues. We even saw in the past over the political football even the name ‘Cummal Shee’, ‘the dwelling of peace’. It would be more in line with our member for Douglas South’s expression at the time that it was as active as Sarajevo sidestreets at the time - Mr Houghton: It was named by you, hon. member. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, it was not named by us; It was actually named by the minister and the chief executive of the DHSS. We did not name it. That was the problem, again a political football. They did not want ‘Ard-Vadran’; They had to have their say and what I do hope will come out in this debate today is that we do not want political footballs, we want solutions that are done rationally and sensibly about this issue. I have heard many in this debate. I have heard people talking about discipline in school, and of course the situation was that one fought against corporal punishment being removed out of school, and some of the very people in this House, even the mover, did not support me over that. We argued the issue of putting something in its place when they threw it out because we have this ridiculous situation which leads on. This is not just an issue once they go through the doors of an institution; it is how it accumulates, the issue of an hour a week for these disruptive children that are often on the ladder into our care establishments. I put sensible amendments for that to the Education Bill, they were thrown out and I am still waiting. I can sympathize to a point with the mover of the Bill, because you try to get these things done and they do not seem to happen. Eaghtyrane, I think we must remember today that they are in a therapeutic unit, it is their home. It is their home that they are in and kids do need space. I do believe that one of the problems we have had was because the footballs were out and we did not have the juvenile justice unit that we are getting - I wonder whether it will be big enough. But I am quite saddened when I listen to the hon. member for North Douglas writing people off that they will always end up in jail, because I can tell you now that when I first went into the prison as the member of the home affairs department it was like a class reunion! There are only about five or six of us that have not been in prison in my class, but I have to say there are people who were real bad eggs at school who actually did not end up in prison; actually, when you look back, they got married, they got sorted out, so I think it is wrong to say that people are written off completely. Mr Henderson: That is not what I said. Mr Karran: I have to say that in my own area I think what we have got to accept is that it is not just segregated to local authority areas, it is in all our areas as far as problem kids, and I think one of the problems that we have to accept is the way that we deal with certain issues. I am glad that my friend is obviously having a remission from his Alzheimer’s - as many suffer in this House - about the drug issue on this Island, and I think other events that have happened recently will actually show that will be more of the issue than the issue of care as far as the sad affairs that have happened recently. But I think one of the things that we have tried to do in my constituency is get the rungs on the ladder. We have opened up a caf≥ for the kids. I am delighted to see that my Minister for Education has given us a youth leader in the area. These are the sort of issues that have to be part of the package, in my opinion, not just to ‘hang ‘em, flog ‘em’ and the ‘we will hang them twice just so that we are looking like we are doing something’ routine that so often happens in this hon. House. Hon. members, I have heard from the Chief Minister that he is happy for any member in this hon. House to go to his committee, and I hope that every member who has a concern makes the effort to go there. I hope that he will look at fundamental issues that I have complained about such as the issue of the need for a proper social services committee to be set up. I have always supported that principle, I have always fought for that principle and I believe that that is one of the problems that we do need to address. The situation is a social services committee, and I do think that the member for West Douglas is quite right: the drugs issue is something that has to be brought into this whole equation when the committee looks at why our children are acting the way that they are, and other social issues such as the break-up of families and the housing pressures at the present time. I know myself I had one only last week when they are living in substandard accommodation, two of the kids are very ill, social services are in there and the single parent is holding onto her kids by the skin of her teeth, with all the pressures and problems there are. So I think we need to have a balance; what we do not need in this House today and I think unfortunately the hon. member for East Douglas. . . I certainly would be feared to take somebody on if I was in a guesthouse and I heard the incidences that everybody who has ever been in an institution is somehow a thug, because that is not the case; I have friends that have been in institutions that are not thugs and I know kids that have been in recently that are not thugs, so I believe that the most sensible way forward is to give the Chief Minister the support. I think we need to realise, and I do believe, that the dawn is dawning as far as the administration is concerned on the issue of getting it right. We have seen too many knee-jerk reactions, too many political footballs. I hope that we support the Chief Minister and let us have a healthy debate in July on the issues that need to be addressed, not knee-jerk as we have seen, because we have wasted millions on this subject because of political compromise. Let us get it right for the kids and let us be educated ourselves and realise what we are talking about that from so many of these experts. In juvenile justice units you are incarcerated; in therapeutic units you are not. That is your alternative home because your family unit has either collapsed around you or your family have abandoned you. I am worried today that if this is made out to be a big thing it will actually egg on these people who are crying out for attention at the present time and will do the very thing that the hon. mover is trying to stop from happening. The President: Now, hon. members, I have got no desire at all to curtail the debate, but I would point out that nine members have now spoken, I still have five on my list to work my way through, and can I ask that the following speakers try not to be repetitive if they can avoid it? I call upon the hon. member for Council, Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I think the hon. mover of the proposition before us today is sincere in attempting to highlight a problem, but in doing so I take note of what the hon. member for Onchan says - that he may inadvertently - I have used that twice now in this session - highlight the very thing, and I do believe copycat incidents are the rage. They do like to read about themselves. I mix with a lot of young people in sports organisations particularly and I listen to what they are talking about - the headlines. It is not what we are talking about; it is what is of interest to them. But I would like to say that the problems that we are dealing with today and have been highlighted so graphically by many members are not unique to today, regrettably, and we do tend to look back through rose-tinted spectacles, but I can assure this hon. Court I had the pleasure of being the Minister for Home Affairs I think it was 10 years ago, 15 years ago, and in those days we had responsibility for trying to attempt to curb this. These things went on then: young people - small numbers of young people - creating havoc. But I have also to say too, you have a load of professional people who would advise you, and if you go to the resolution and a committee is set up, who would the committee go to for advice? They would have to, I suggest, go to the professionals, because who else is there to go to? (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) Now, the professionals are already up and running with this, and one must pay tribute to the former Chief Minister for having initiated it. So I do not think you can reinvent the wheel, and I do think that it has been highlighted and is urgent, and I think that is the best the mover of the resolution can expect. Also, I wonder what we have done for the moral of the people who are attempting to wrestle with this problem. It is a huge problem. What have we done, or what are we doing, in support? Every member of this Court should be supporting the support agencies; every single one of us should be supporting them, and that means when they come and ask us for money to assist and help in various ways, then we should not be afraid to support them. Now, that does not just mean voting money but it does mean in general terms that, listening to the debate today, there is nothing right at all being done in this field, that the people, the minister of the DHSS or the Chief Minister is not concerned about what has happened on the Sloc last week, and what happened tragically in other parts. And, by the way, it is not an urban area; it does not just happen in Douglas; it does not just happen in Ramsey, Peel or Castletown. The hon. member for Middle said, ‘It is happening in Glen Vine.’ It is certainly happening in the village that we are living in, Ballasalla. So, it is not a phenomenon that is unique to built-up areas and, again, I think a very valid point was made about the changing circumstances where we used to export the really troublesome people from the Island so we did not see it. So it never happened, hence the rose-tinted spectacles. But it did. We are always going to have a small number of problem children with us. I think we have got to recognise that. I think we have a short-term problem and we have a medium and long-term problem. I think the medium and long-term problem is being addressed and I genuinely believe that the authorities are attempting, with the set-up of this working committee, in the immediate term to address the problem, hence the secure unit that is going out to the White Hoe. I remember voting for the White Hoe project, and I think I said in that debate that if it is full, we have failed. It looks as if we are going to start off with a full house, regrettably, but do not think that the option is, immediately you have a problem, to incarcerate someone away from it. I have got three words down - and I do get angry sometimes when everybody talks about rights. It is responsibilities that are the equation of that and respect (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.), and I think the young people have got to have respect for the community as well but, in talking to young people - you know yourself - the first instance they test you, they push, they try to isolate, they try to use and then, when you eventually get under that, you come down to having a conversation with them, but it takes time. Rights, responsibility and respect, and I think genuinely we have got in this Court to come today to take the emotion out. I can understand why emotions run high on this because it does affect lifestyle, for instance in Ballasalla, where they run through the village and rip lights off in the early hours and nine buildings are broken into in one spree. It was not somebody from Douglas who came out to do it. It was someone from Ballasalla that did it, and we were all shocked and horrified and shrugged our shoulders but we tried to identify why it happened and tried to prevent it, and I am sure the counseling that the individual is getting is helping. The mover of the resolution, I do hope, is not looking for a cast-iron guarantee - ‘vote for me and you get a cast-iron guarantee, vote for the amendment and, if anything happens, I told you so.’ Now, I do not think it is that sort of situation that we are dealing with, and I urge the Court to take a balanced view, I thank the hon. member for getting it here on the floor, but support the amendment in the name of the Chief Minister. The President: Hon. member for Garff, Mr Rodan. Mr Rodan: Mr President, I firstly want to reinforce the point that ought to be and, I detect, basically is the starting point in a debate such as this, which is that the vast majority of young people in this Island are decent, are well-behaved (Several Members: Hear, hear.) and are a credit to themselves and their families. The vast majority do not get into trouble. We have 12,000 young people in our school system from the ages of four to 18 and the vast majority of them grow up into responsible citizens, well-behaved mature adults who do have a sense of right and wrong, typical youngsters growing up, this generation as they have generations past. I think the amazing thing is that the vast majority do grow up with a sense of what is right and wrong and with a sense of values, and know how to behave responsibly. When one considers the pressures that are upon them, the backdrop being Western so-called civilized society with the temptations of drink, drugs and shifting moral values, what they see in the media, the materialism of today, the changing values of society, not least the fact that parents today are basically afraid of their children, the changing structures that we are all old enough to have lived through and have seen, the decline in respect for the police, teachers, the courts, adults in authority and, of course, parents, and despite the pub culture of this Island that is too often a substitute for meaningful, instructive youth activity in purpose-built facilities. What we are basically talking about is a hardcore of individuals - the numbers are barely in three figures - but a hardcore of individuals out of the 12,000, certainly, who are in education who are responsible for most of the problems and problems out of all proportion to the number responsible. Now, the Chief Minister moving the amendment has referred to the Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee and the low profile that this committee has operated under, and perhaps now is the opportunity in this hon. Court to raise the profile of that committee and say exactly what this committee is all about. How did it start? How did this committee come into being? Well, hon. members may remember that at the Ballakermeen School prize-giving in December 2000 the then headteacher Mr Masterton announced a policy of zero tolerance in his school, by which he meant that there would be no tolerance of less than the best standards of behaviour, there would be no tolerance of individuals who did not come to school with an attitude to learn and with an attitude to let their colleagues learn in peace and without disruption. This struck a chord with the public, with that audience and with the wider public. It was reported upon on Manx Radio, Mr Masterton gave interviews and at last here was some common sense being talked. This coincided with reports in the Department of Education which were emanating from an agency which is working closely with young people and which is called ‘Include’, and many members are familiar with the good work and the unsung work that is being done with individuals who have been, for one reason or another, suspended from school and temporarily excluded from the system working with them to get them back on the rails and into the system, and that report was talking about a twilight world of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in this Island, individuals living in flats without purpose, not in the education system, not in employment, but drifting through years - a very dangerous situation for those individuals and potentially for a wider society. At that time, the DHSS was similarly reporting on the difficulties as a department that they were having in resourcing the residential care and the cost of secure accommodation in the UK, which is the ultimate destination of a limited number of those individuals. And what do all these factors have in common? What is in common is that it is shutting the stable door when the horse has bolted. These problems were highlighting the tackling of the problem at the wrong end, at the criminal justice end, and at the end where values and behaviour patterns have already been set; these are young adults embarking on adult life before them - 10 years too late, in many cases - damaged and highly damaged individuals from home backgrounds of parents who, if they were there, could not or would not carry out their parental responsibilities, often individuals who have been physically abused, but what is in common with them all is that they are individuals who were not born bad. They are exhibiting bad behaviour, 16, 15, whatever years later. They were not born bad and, as Mrs Cannell, I think, said in her contribution, the system somehow has failed them. None of this is new to you, hon. members; these are not new revelations today, but what is perhaps useful today is that they have been brought into focus and that the Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee was the outcome of, in January last year - it has been running about 15 months - a recognition by a number of departments in government that it was high time the system ceased to fail these children, and something ought to be done about it; there ought to be a concerted cross-agency effort within government, both to identify the root causes and, as the hon. member for Council, Mr Lowey, has referred to, look at the medium and long- term strategies, which is what I talked about just now, and embark on for perhaps the second time - the first being the Chief Minister’s Drugs and Alcohol Strategy - this Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee to achieve joined-up government. And what the purpose of that committee is then is to identify the policies that should be put in place by government as a whole as distinct from the policies being operated by individual departments being resourced individually. The Department of Education - I am not going to go on talking much longer, Mr President, but I could talk about the matters that that department is engaged upon with, as recently as yesterday, the resources voted into place by this hon. Court for six new staff out of the 40 allocated to the Department of Education who will be specifically working with social and education behavioural units in our schools both on-site and off-site including an expansion of off-site provision, working up as well as a department how we are to deliver citizenship in the curriculum - this is a new curriculum requirement. It is very important to get the moral values in at the right age and to get across the duties, the rights and the responsibilities that young people will be required to exercise in later life as adults. This is all fine intent, but when we are dealing with young people who have difficulty getting out of bed in the morning and being escorted by their care worker to school, that is the reality too. So the hon. member for Douglas North has done a service this morning by bringing into focus arguably an aspect of the work of this committee that needs to be more firmly addressed, and that is protection of the public - Mr Houghton: Hear, hear, well said. Mr Rodan: - because our constituents, while understanding the need to focus on the reasons for these behaviour patterns, expect also government to act on their protection. It is therefore the intent of this committee - and I know it has been the intent of the Chief Minister who chairs the Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee - in fact to invite the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, to the next meeting of that committee to expand upon the options as he sees them as is described in the amendment to address the problem of young persons with challenging behaviour absenting themselves from care establishments. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) Now, for the reasons that his colleague in North Douglas, Mr Henderson, says, this will not be an easy matter because he has reassured us that the purpose of today’s original motion is not an attempt, quoting Mr Henderson’s words, to incarcerate or have a ‘throw the key away’ approach - Mr Henderson: Hear, hear. Absolutely! Mr Rodan: - but what we do need to know is what options are workable options short of that which respect all the other things that are going on, respect the needs of the child, respect the fact that this society, this country, has signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for example; all these things will also come into play, but a genuine attempt has to be made within this committee to find strategies that will work and deal with the problem. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. member Mr Braidwood. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. I believe a large number of the general public will be sympathetic to Mr Houghton’s motion, because they see on the television the problems associated with young people, which fortunately does not happen on the Island; we read in the papers week after week some sort of incident, and their perception is that every child in care causes this problem, and that is not right. I totally agree with the Chief Minister: it is only a minority of the number of children in voluntary care, who cause the problem. Now, Mr Houghton when moving his motion, quoted a lot of statistics of vehicles which had been taken without owners’ consent since September, 19 attributable to children in care but mainly repeat offenders. Again, the 270 from September who had gone missing from DHSS care homes were again repeat offenders. It is only a minority of those people in care. Mr Houghton: Hear, hear. Main point, well done! Mr Braidwood: He also quoted the frustration of the police. Yes, the police are frustrated on having to go out and find the children, but they know it is of paramount importance to find them with the care workers because they know the dangers which these children can get into. Two years ago, or a year and a half ago, a young boy was found dead from solvent abuse who had gone missing, so I know there is a close liaison now with the care workers in the homes and the police. My hon. colleague for Douglas East has quoted some incident in our constituency. Yes, I was involved. She quoted that he is going to a care conference on Friday over one individual and that person is in voluntary care, her family wanting her to go into voluntary care because her father was afraid of what he might do otherwise. I am not mentioning any individual names whatsoever. This young person involved was once suspended from school, then was excluded from school, was ‘included’ in the Include programme and she was expelled from that, so there have been problems in that family. I will vote in support of the amendment by the Chief Minister. I am a member of the Children and Young Persons Strategy Committee and the hon. member for Garff was quite right: there is no point in looking at the problem of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds. We have to identify the problem when they are seven and eight, and the whole point of this committee is to look at that. We are looking at this, and all I can say of Mr Houghton’s motion is that it will be a duplication of the work which is already going on in the children and young persons committee, and we will be bringing forward by July 2002 some options which will be debated in this hon. Court. We all know there is no easy solution. We will look at other countries, as has been mentioned, as to why they do not have a problem with their young persons. Mrs Crowe: Oh, where are they? Mr Braidwood: But we cannot wave a magic wand and say: ‘This is what you do, let’s look at it let’s see what we can do and for the benefit of our young people who need that care and attention. The President: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I realise that as politicians we have all the answers. We have heard the answer today that ‘something must be done’ and I think it is the usual approach that politicians have, that ‘something must be done’. I think the member for Garff suggested that this debate has helped. I wonder how this debate has helped. This debate has helped to raise the profile of young people who have difficulties and it has also helped politicians, because I think in both areas we like the oxygen of publicity and we should not get away from that. The member for Douglas North had the front page of the Examiner this week. The young people had the front page of the Examiner this week and the same it was the week before. So oh yes, we have all the answers, we love the publicity, and this is the high profile that I suggest that the member for Douglas North craves. So yes, it has been successful. Now, the member who has just resumed his seat said that we should be taking action by the time children are seven or eight. I would say that is far too late. We should be investing in our young people really from the word go. We should be helping and supporting young families, whether they are single parents or whether they have got two parents. We should be providing good quality nursery education. There are a number of issues that we should be doing. We should be providing play areas within the community. What are children doing? Children are following in the footsteps of their parents. I think the member for Onchan spoke about drugs - well, I would say one of the most potent drugs in the community is alcohol, and what do they see their parents and the rest of us doing, even people involved in sport? ‘Oh, how are you going to celebrate tonight? Are you going to go off and have a few jars?’ because they have either won or are drowning their sorrows. These are all the sorts of aspects that children are following. Why should we then be surprised? Somebody talked - I think it was Mr Downie - about television. Yes, television has an impact that we never had and yet we still had young people who got into difficulties, still had people that got involved in all sorts of jeeyl right the way down the ages, and I do not think we should forget that this is not just because cars are more available. What do young people do as soon as they get to 16? Even our well-adjusted young people crave a motor. They crave a motor that goes fast. What do these young people have? These young people do not have parents who will take them out and drive, they do not have parents to support them like that, and so what do they do? They go and take a souped-up car which is out there and drive it in the countryside, and somebody is paying them attention and they are getting the publicity from this. I think it was the member for Garff who said that some of them do not have the energy to get out of bed, but some of them do not have an awful lot to get out of bed for and I think, instead of this blame culture that we tend to be entering into, we look at ways of helping, assisting, giving young people the respect that I feel they deserve, and I think the Minister for Education stated quite clearly this morning that a lot of our young people do particularly well, they are fine, upstanding members of the community, but they have had support from the community in different ways; they have had parents who can take them to whatever it is, take them to nice play areas in various parts of the Island because local communities do not have them, take the children swimming, take them on various courses, also take them on holiday. Look at the comments there have been in recent times about children in care being taken on holiday. We took our kids on holiday, we gave them the time and I am sure every member around here can, but we have the wherewithal to do that. We put time into our children - not an easy thing to do, but we do give them time, we help them, we adjust them into school, we help adjust them into secondary school, we help them, encourage them to look for employment or carry on and take all the opportunities that are there in education. These children that we are talking about today do not have all of that, and I am not saying that it is all the children that do not have the support that end up in care, because there are other children too who do not respond or have families that stay together but do not have the wherewithal to support them down the ages. But I do not think we should get away from the situation that something must be done, and by setting up a select committee we are doing something. I would say we are not; I would say that various issues around what we are talking about today should not be discussed until it gets much further down the lane, and I know young people who have been in care and who are members of the community now and have never been in trouble are very concerned with the high profile that is being promoted about the attacks that the care officers within the Department of Health and Social Security are coming under because of the difficulties that they are under from young people. So it is upsetting people out there who have been through this situation where I think we are trying to brand everybody who is in care as a serious problem. A number of these young people are in voluntary care for the simple reason that the member for Douglas East mentioned - that families cannot cope, and you have to look at why families cannot cope: for very many different reasons. Human dignity comes into it, and I think we would all wish to be respected and in some cases I do not think that we necessarily are giving respect to young people. A lot of the issues I think do not go back, I think it was, just the last three years, as was mentioned by member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson, who seconded the motion; they go back much further than that, and a number of people that have spoken on the floor of this House today have been members of Social Services and have represented that area: Mr Karran, Mr Houghton himself moving this particular motion is there. I wonder what he did in his time to improve - Mr Houghton: I got the secure unit. Mrs Hannan: Oh, so that is the answer to everything is it? Lock everybody up? Well, it is not going to be the answer, Mr Houghton. I can tell you that right now. It is absolutely not going to be until you give these young people respect, include them in the community and start before they get to the age when you are going to lock them up. We have all sorts of areas where we are progressing it with legislation, and these orders will be coming through during the next few months. This secure unit will be coming through, but that is not the answer. Locking children up and keeping them away from the community is not the answer. Prison is not the answer. We had a committee of the Council of Ministers when I was there on education looking at what we should do then with young people and where we could provide a secure unit. That unit was provided within the prison much against my advice and all the advice that I had, and that is what we are being told now - that it is not the place to put young people, it is not the place where they can be worked with, so over those about 10 years we have actually let those young people down. So this is not something where we have suddenly decided that there is a problem. We had a very good budget yesterday, lots of money out there, but in the past there has not been the funds there to put into issues such as this and there might not be in the future. But the secure unit is not the panacea and, as I have said before, prison is not the panacea. The number of young people in prison is quite enormous. So we have not in the past put resources into our young people. Some of these issues, I would say, are being addressed and will be helped but we need to do an awful lot more. In proposing this motion before us and circulating this, the member for Douglas North sent round a press cutting about a 16-year-old who was chased by the police and ended up getting, I think it was, 24 weeks’ youth custody. That particular person was not in care. Mr Houghton: Yes, he was. Mrs Crowe: No, he was not. Mrs Hannan: That particular person was not in care. I have seen this young person’s report and I would not bring something to this Court if it were not correct. That young person was not in care. And I think it does the actual care system, it does the parents out there a disservice if we are saying that every child that gets into difficulties is in care, and that is not the case; we have a number of young people out there and if we do not put the resources in, we are going to have more. In the West we have an Inter-Agency Group, which is a number of agencies meeting together - youth workers, Outreach workers, Manx Family Services, myself, head teachers, the police, a number of us, local authority members, and we meet round the table about every couple of months and try to progress assistance for young people within the community so that they are not going to get into difficulties, by providing services and leisure facilities and the rest of it. They are working in Outreach within the community with these young people. We have provided a bus which helps and assists - it is not the answer. We need a bigger youth facility within the area; we have quite a small one. We need other areas of investment as well, and I would hope that this particular committee that is looking at the youth strategy will look at these particular areas, of developing and supporting young people, families and the like. I know a lot of the progress that has been made in recent times will help and assist young people, but to continually go on about when they get into trouble is not the answer to everything. As the member for Garff has said, we have a lot of young people out there who are of high moral standing within the community, who do very well and take up all the options that are available to them. We should be providing for some of these other areas. We should also remember the culture in which we live, and this culture relates to, as I have said before, drugs and mainly alcohol within our community, and I think we should be looking at how we address this particular issue of centring in on this alcohol all the time. We need an improvement in housing; we need an improvement in all of these areas. It is not going to happen overnight and it is not something that a select committee could do. I think that a start has been made with the Chief Minister’s young persons strategy committee and I would hope that we will give them the message from this Court today that they must carry out their work expeditiously together with the agencies that are working with them. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: My list, hon. members, is growing since I last reported and I would like to complete this item before lunch. Hon. member for Council, Mr Waft. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. My past life tells me that I have been down this road before to some degree; with working at a large psychiatric hospital there was a tendency and philosophy 20 or 30 years ago that every door should be locked except the admission ward. And then came the philosophy that ‘Oh no, this is wrong, we will open all the doors,’ so all the doors were open again. And then came along another suggestion that all the doors should be locked again, and this went on over a period of a number of years and everybody had the answer. In actual fact, nobody had the answer until at the end of the day we decided ‘What were they doing here anyway in the first place?’ and most of the psychiatric hospitals now are closed down and we are very glad to see them go. However, there are problems with having everywhere open because there is access for people to come in and people to go out at will, and even in your own home you have a certain responsibility for your front door to see that the situation is not abused by people coming in or people indeed going out if you have got young children. I think that we are perhaps getting a little bit away from the background of the motion, and there have been a lot of emotive speeches going on today. I take the minister’s point of view: she might see it, as the Minister for DHSS, that there is a suggestion that the department is failing, but I do not think that was the suggestion at all. I think this is a particular area which is causing concern to the general public, and we have heard about the rights of the child. I would just like to remind members that it was only a year ago that the Mental Health Act was changed and it gave the staff the ability to detain someone for six hours if they were a danger to themselves or a danger to others. You see the problem was, if some old lady decided to walk out the door and you restrained them, you could be had up for all kinds of things and staff were very concerned about, you know, ‘I cannot really restrain this person’ but I think times change and people realise that you have got to act with common sense and understand you are acting in the best interests of that person at that time, so I think any court of law would support you in that. The mention has been suggested about supporting the agencies. We have to support the agencies. There is not a worse job out to somebody who does not like doing the work; you have to be dedicated to that sort of thing to be confronted with a child who is swearing and shouting and jumping up and down, fighting, spitting. To try and find out the good points of that child and have some rapport with him takes a long period of time and it is not for the faint-hearted; it has to go on for a very long period of time. I know people said about one-parent families and family life in general as being the cause of this situation and we can always put it down to one reason or another why the child has turned out like he has. The point is, we have to look at the situation here and now and confront it and do the best we can with it. I would echo, I think it was the member for Onchan who said about some of these people that they are not just from poor families. I know there are some well educated people walking around now, and to see them in their adolescence and the problems they were going through many years ago - you would be absolutely astounded at the change that has taken place and these people have become upright members of society, and I could name quite a few. I think somebody suggested a magic wand. Nobody has a magic wand. I think the problem that the member for North Douglas was trying to establish was the problem of people absconding and causing havoc around the countryside with stolen cars et cetera. I do not suppose we have got any worse a problem than anywhere else in the British Isles but, at the same time, it is a problem for the police. I know one policeman has said to me, ‘It is no good getting these children into these places; they are back on the beat quicker than I am. As soon as I go home and get changed, they are back out there again.’ That has been a problem that has been hopefully been trying to be addressed. I realise that the Chief Minister’s amendment has tried to refer it back to the strategy committee, but the problem is this has been going on for some time now and the strategy committee have not really produced the goods with deciding on the way forward with it. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) The philosophy, fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, of people who do look after children in care homes is that, as again the member for Onchan said, that these are their homes and they have to respect them and try and bring some love and affection back into the lives of the children, really, and to establish that rapport with them. But again you will get people who will abuse the system and all I think the member for North Douglas is saying that there should be a little bit of rick there to say, ‘Look, you cannot be doing this in the community and you are not allowed to go out for a while until you adapt to a certain set of boundaries.’ All children like boundaries at the end of the day and they will push them as far as they can, but at the end of the day they are respected; the boundaries are there. So I am not saying it is an easy way out of doing anything, but there is a big problem there and how we address it. Either the strategic committee by this debate today will have it highlighted to them and they will be able to act a little more promptly (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) or address it more quickly - that might be the way ahead, but it is a problem. But nobody is trying to suggest that the workers who are involved in childcare are not doing the best that they can. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. I think we have got two matters here and we are tending to blur the two and I do not think there are two matters we are discussing today. One is the immediate situation and one is the future action that we should be taking or action that we have been taking and should continue to take, and I think this item is on the agenda today from the hon. member for North Douglas because he felt it is an emergency and that some immediate action needs to be taken. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) Now, I accept completely the DHSS minister’s comments that we time to encourage responsible citizenship for the majority of those in care, and I agree entirely with that, because it can be successful; and also the other comments that are to be made that we should be starting as early as possible when young people are identified that they could be growing up as we would not wish them to do, as society would not wish them to do, and we can encourage them from an early age and I have no complaint with that. But there does seem to be polarisation of comment going on here today: those people who are saying that certain action is needed now for safety reasons and those who are just saying, yes, action needs to be taken but it will take time, and I think that we need to be looking at a combination of both here today. What we have heard that has happened in recent times, to me, is unacceptable to society because of the safety risk to people and the small number of the young people themselves, they are putting themselves at risk (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) and we are responsible for the fact that they are putting themselves at risk. What is happening is not occasional; Mr Houghton has not brought it here because it is a one-off. It appears to be a regular occurrence and people’s lives are being put at risk by, I admit, a small number. We may have failed them, we probably have, in some way but now we are reaping the consequences, but we cannot therefore say we have failed them so we are going to ignore what is happening; that is just compounding the issue. There are a number of young people in care who know exactly what they are doing, they know exactly what they can get away with, they look at lack of discipline as a weakness and they laugh at it. The fact is, as we heard, they are taken back and they know when they move out, they can go out again, abscond again as they wish, and they only understand - and I use the word - ‘punishment’ which restricts them, it stops them from doing what they want to do, and I think that is the only thing that they do understand if they cannot just go out and do what they want to do. I am coping with two teenagers and I know exactly the problems and the tribulations, and there are some fantastic kids out there who have had a hard time and there are some bad or, if you want to use the word, ‘challenging’ kids, the hardcore that were referred to by the hon. member for Garff, and some of them may have had everything that they have ever wanted in life but they still turn out to take actions which are unacceptable to that society. You cannot always, therefore, blame the background. Mrs Hannan seemed to say those without parental influence in care did not get the cars and they did not get the holidays, so they went out and they took the cars and held that against society. I do not believe that is true; I think that is an excuse but I think that excuse is wrong, because the majority of those who come from these backgrounds, which are backgrounds that perhaps we would not like to come from or we would not like our children to come from, still integrate well into society. The fact is that the hard core are putting themselves and the public at risk and this is what is being brought to our attention today. Police time is being taken up, and the Minister of Home Affairs did quite graphically in another place describe the continual theft of vehicles by young people supposed to under control of the care homes. I accept that these may well be the same offenders time after time but, whenever they do offend, the public unknowingly is being put at risk and we also have a clear responsibility to the community. In only accepting the Chief Minister’s amendment I think it is rather glossing over the immediate problem. The Chief Minister seemed to be saying the problem has been with us for a while, and the hon. Mr Rimington seemed to say the same thing but the immediate situation of safety needs to be tackled now. Therefore I feel that we should be supporting part 1 of the resolution, the immediate action, and I am happy to support the intention of the Chief Minister’s amendment but I think the mover is asking for action now to tackle the problems we have now, the danger to the public and the danger to the absconders and the community does need temporary relief as well as a long-term answer. So it is not a case of having a door and throwing the key away; I look at it as having a door that actually has a key in the first place and that can be used when necessary. The President: Hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. I am saddened about the incidents which cause us to have this debate today. However, I have enjoyed the debate and I think it is timely and will benefit all of us. I think the issue first came to light when I returned to the Isle of Man in 1988 and the schools at that time were far better behaved and socially attractive than the place I had been previously on Merseyside, but within a few years I saw a deterioration in the standards of behaviour, and in the early part of the 1990s it was obvious, almost tangible, to schoolteachers that there were children that we were failing in the secondary sector because they were coming to us with too many problems and we were unable to cope adequately with their needs. Having fought within the system and realising that year on year there were a number of children at the lower end of the behavioural scale that we were failing, I took a course available to me, which was to stand for office and, being a teacher by trade - I always hopefully will be a teacher mentally - I believe that this is the place where the influence and control can be exerted. Over the five years I have not banged a drum regularly about children’s issues because, having worked quietly, I am encouraged by the measures of the previous Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister of the day for identifying in my eyes the appropriate ways forward - that is, a co-ordinated approach, and we have seen the drug strategy which came in predominately as a sexy issue for politicians: the drugs were this evil and therefore there was a response. I was more encouraged when that was followed by an alcohol strategy which, as I think the member for Peel mentioned, still I believe is one of the greatest scourges of people on this Island, and indeed the British Islands culture of alcohol is one which causes concern. So we were identifying there were root causes to many of these problems and even more encouraged by, at last, the setting up of the children’s and young persons’ strategy. Why was it not done years before? (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) Then it was isolated incidents which the politicians did not identify, and the professionals were unable to get the message across in adequate form for the politicians to make resources available. But what has happened, not just with those strategies, is we have also seen the creation of an off-site educational facility for primary school children, which deals with the behaviours at the early age; we have seen the introduction of the Include programme for Outreach work going on not just with the children but with the families; we have a growing amount of awareness politically over the last five and now six budgets, and the resources of staff and money have been concentrated upon the three key departments affecting this area - namely DHSS, Education and, regrettably in the third place, Home Affairs. So resources and money have gone into these areas to try and assist at a number of levels. Strategies and working parties of professionals have been established to try and get a collective view on a way forward, and I know many of the professionals in these areas who understand all of the problems more graphically than anybody in this chamber can would like the powers and the skills to resolve those issues more adequately, and it is only ourselves who can actually create those resources. It therefore, to me, is beneficial to have this discussion and debate today because all of those who are involved in decision-making would have heard first hand the stories outlined, we have all had anecdotes, but we now have acknowledged that there is a trend, not isolated incidents, growing over a number of years and, as one of the former speakers said, we are reaping what we have sown some years ago by not having the adequate moneys and resources being put in, but we are making great strides. It does not happen overnight and there is not a solution, but I do believe there is an acknowledgment in this Court about the need to inject a greater level of co-ordination in this field. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) The support agencies - the member for Council, Mr Lowey, talked about the support for them and that is quite right, but they acknowledge and admit that they have not got it right, it is not perfect, there are ways to improve it and hopefully we will now have the political will to listen to the needs and then find the resources. However difficult that is, this is an issue that the previous speaker talked about hitting on two levels. As a teacher I care about children, as we all do, but professionally care about children. They are the ones whose lives may be blighted if we do not get this right. Equally important are the citizens of the Island whose lives are affected by the behaviour of the small numbers. But I do think that we have an obligation, not just to support the agencies, acknowledge their skills and provide the shortfalls, but to take ownership of this issue by actually understanding the problems more at first hand, because I would imagine that there are less than half a dozen people in this room who have actually spent more than half an hour dealing with any of the young people we are talking about. They are not the ones who go to football clubs, they are not the ones who go to youth clubs; these are the young people at the most extreme level of society and they do not engage in conversation with politicians. We may talk to the parents, but it is one where I would like to see, rather than criticising some of these facilities, us actively going down and we would be welcomed by these care homes to actually understand the conditions in which they work and to actually get to know some of the young people and the circumstances that have led them to be in that position. We also have an obligation to support agencies outside of government. Not a pure pat on my own back, but we all get involved in charitable and support work outside of our jobs, and I would hope that other members in other fields do the same. So I am a director of Relate, marriage guidance, to try and keep families together; Life Education, to try and help young children in the primary schools to understand their health and social responsibilities; and also, often forgotten, the Alcohol Advisory Service, who again try to work with people who suffer, either families or individuals who have alcohol problems, and anybody who saw the programme last night on alcohol should begin to understand the complexity and the damage caused by alcohol or drug issues. I therefore think that all of us, hopefully, will be involving ourselves with these agencies to try and actually support and show that we do care and we learn to understand the good work that is going on out there. If we can fully accept the responsibility that the constituents have given to us in this place, I think then we have a chance of taking ownership of problems affecting young people and we will begin to move forward. I think the amendment in the name of the Chief Minister reflects the good work that is going on. There is no magic cure, but it is one where the open invitation for people to become involved, I think, moves this House forward again, and I welcome it, sir. The President: Now, hon. members, I anticipate there will be voting on the amendment and the motion which is before us. I am in Mr Houghton’s hands. I would like to complete the debate. If Mr Houghton can give me the undertaking that he can complete his winding-up inside 10 minutes, I will continue to finish. If not, sir, you will be the first after. Mr Houghton: Yes, sir. No, I am quite willing to do that, sir. The President: Wind-up then, Mr Houghton, please. Mr Houghton: I thank all hon. members this morning for an excellent debate; there have been some very valuable points made therein, and can I say at the outset that I am quite willing to support the hon. Chief Minister’s amendment in this. I want to say some further points just towards the end, but if I can go through and thank the hon. member Mr Henderson for seconding my motion and also the hon. member Mrs Cannell for all the detailed circumstances that she has experienced in this situation and, of course, there was some account with what the hon. member for Peel said about the circumstance of one person in care who was involved in the Baldrine road traffic accident. Indeed, he was in care, he was in leaving care with Priory House and that was the same person as Mrs Cannell was referring to. I take on board all the points the hon. Chief Minister made in his comprehensive accounts to this debate but the purpose of this matter is that, even taking into account the matters that are going on as far as behind the scenes are concerned, that is having no effect whatsoever with what is happening now and urgent measures need to be taken now to deal with that situation, so I support the strategy committee and I will wait and I will attend one of the committee meetings in the future just to discuss that with those politicians and officers there. So I do thank him for the offer of that and, as I say, time needs to be given to sort the matter out in the long term but I am still most concerned about the short term. I thank the hon. member Mr Gill and the hon. member for Rushen, Mr Rimington, for his input and indeed Mr Downie and Mrs Christian. I do appreciate that the Department of Health and Social Security once again are on the spot here. I do feel that the work that they have been doing towards this has been completely inadequate in this area where we have about 15 persistent absconders who will stop at nothing to commit crimes. That is the area that I put under the spotlight today. I thank the hon. member for Middle, Mr Quayle, for his input and also my good colleague Mr Henderson for his clear explanatory opinion and understanding of the situation and I am grateful to him for that. The hon. member Mr Karran - once again, I have to say, came out with the usual diatribe of meaningless comments. He goes on about wanting solutions - how does he know what was moved? He was not here in the seat when the debate went on so how can he make comment of what I said when he was not actually here? So I would ask the hon. member, Mr Karran, because he does make some decent points in certain debates, just to try and make some of his points more succinct and believable. I thank the hon. member of Council, Mr Lowey - some very good comments from him, and also I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Garff, Mr Rodan, Minister for Education. I thank him for his input there. He did put the matter completely in context where there are 12,000 youngsters yet we have got a problem with 15. Why should that be? You put it completely into context, hon. member. So what are we doing with a serious problem like this that is going to lead to death, multiple fatalities and we have got a problem with only 15? I would, for the hon. members’ consideration here, have thought that yes, we would have had a serious problem if there were about 1,000 people doing all of this, but just 15 maximum - that is all I am concerned with here. He made also a good, valuable point that we are tackling the problems at the wrong end and that is the reason why there needs to be this strategy and I do acknowledge that. He also mentions citizenship in school curriculums; there is nothing new about that, hon. member. As the commandant of the Special Constabulary I used to give many citizenship lectures in Onchan village, so that has happened on many occasions. The other point that he made in his input about the strategy committee, that the strategy committee seems to be dealing with issues towards the children - I would like to make input into that committee by saying that the first thing it must protect is obviously the lives of those people in consideration, but also they should be charged with the fact that they must protect the public also and the public’s property, which is not being protected at the moment. He made another good point about human rights of the child and here we are, all thinking about children - we are concerned. We voted a fortune in the budget yesterday to go towards childcare and we have not got a problem about that. It would be nice to see children getting treated and therapeutically treated et cetera, and of course they have got human rights, but what is missing here is the human rights of the public, and that is where this hon. Court is betraying them. I also move on by thanking the hon. member Mr Braidwood, Minister for Home Affairs, for his supportive comments. He indeed is as concerned about this as I am. He made some clear and definitive points and I thank him for that. As I say, it is a serious matter and I do concur with all your points, hon. member. The hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, just simply defended the actions of the persistent absconder. She did an excellent job; she should have been a lawyer, and she seems to be supportive of the status quo and that is her point and so on, but she is right in that prison and secure units are not the answer. Of course I note she did not come along and say, as she mentioned others have not come to say today, what her ideals of the answer were. Mrs Hannan: Well, I asked you what yours were. Mr Houghton: I have given my answer; it is in the motion. Mrs Hannan: Then it must be done. Mr Houghton: That it right. I think I have cleared up hopefully that issue to do with the gentleman driving the vehicle with four other absconders from care through Baldrine - that that gentleman was most certainly in Nugent Care, leaving care project. Mrs Hannan: No, he was not. Mr Houghton: I thank the hon. member, Mr Waft, for his supportive comments and also the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, for his valuable input into the debate. His points were clearly made and he has a clear understanding of circumstances, as I am quite certain most other hon. members have. Also I am very grateful to the hon. member Mr Shimmin. He demonstrated a good and clear understanding, a better understanding than many of us, of course, because of his role in his previous employment. He also made the point of encouraging members of Tynwald to visit care houses, and the hon. member and myself have discussed this a number of times in the past. I would also encourage hon. members to go and see what is going on, but not by ringing up for a three o’clock in the afternoon appointment when some of them may be receiving education, but arrange to go there at seven, eight or nine o’clock at night and find out whether there is anybody in or not. But I would encourage that, and for his information or for the hon. Court’s information, I have visited care homes; I visited one care home on the day after the murder had happened and also will be visiting another care home again next week, so there is no problem there. If I can just finally wind up by simply propounding my arguments here. This is to do with round about 15 persistent absconders who do not care what they do to offend and have no regard for other people’s safety. Those are the people I wish to focus in on, not all the other care issues and everything else that is going on; I am not concerned with that today. In the long term, as I say, I have already mentioned that I would be quite willing to support the work of this committee and that it report back in July, as indeed my proposed select committee was wishing to do, but I do have to say that if that committee lets us down, I will be back to this hon. Court. I also would like to make the point that we have given the committee a chance to deal with the long-term issues that must be done, but I would ask the hon. Chief Minister - in fact I would charge him with this, and it is very serious - that he actually listens, which I am sure he has done, to what is being said today and that he does take immediate action to deal with these persistent absconders, those who are likely to burgle, steal, take cars and ram police vehicles or do anything else like that. Those 15 - I could give you the names of all of them, hon. member, if you want them and I would be more than willing to work along with you. But I do charge you with this, because if nothing is done and this next weekend or the weekend after there is another circumstance which leads to a fatality, I will be holding you responsible, sir, and every one of your ministers so responsible also. Now, I do not want to have to do that, but I want you to seize command of this situation now before someone is killed. Mr President, I beg to move, sir. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you is not on your order paper but it has been circulated to you as a separate matter and it is in the name of Mr Houghton, that (1) Tynwald is of the opinion that the Council of Ministers must implement urgent measures in order to prevent young persons with challenging behaviour from absconding from care establishments, and (2) a select committee of five members be set up to investigate and report with recommendations by the July 2002 sitting. To that you have the amendment, again circulated, in the name of the Chief Minister. Hon. members, those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Hon. members, I put the motion as amended. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Thank you, hon. members. I think that is an appropriate time in which to adjourn. Court will resume its deliberations at 2.30 p.m. Thank you, hon. members. The Court adjourned at 1.13 p.m. Emergency Services’ Joint Control Room — Approval of Expenditure for Information Technology Equipment — Motion Carried Item 5. The Minister for Home Affairs to move: That Tynwald approves the expenditure of a sum not exceeding £1,520,000 on the provision and implementation of information technology equipment for the Emergency Services’ Joint Control Room. The President: Right, hon. members, we have reached item 5 on our order paper and I call on the Minister for Home Affairs to move the Emergency Services’ Joint Control Room measure. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to move that Tynwald approves the expenditure of a sum not exceeding £1.52 million for the provision and implementation of information technology equipment for the Emergency Services’ Joint Control Room. At the July 2000 sitting of this hon. Court, unanimous approval was given for expenditure of £156,000 on design fees, pre-contract, in respect of a scheme for the establishment of an Emergency Services’ Joint Control Room. Subsequently, at the July 2001 sitting of this hon. Court, unanimous approval was given for expenditure of £1,475,000 for the building construction phase of the project. At that time, my predecessor as Minister for Home Affairs advised that, at a subsequent date, Tynwald approval would be sought in respect of the final phase of the project, namely the costs associated with the introduction of updated operating systems. The motion before this hon. Court relates to that phase. For clarification purposes, I would advise that previous submissions in respect of the joint control room and the associated digital trunk radio system were made in the name of the Communications Commission. From 1st August 2001, the functions and staff of the technical division of the commission transferred to become the Communications Division of the Department of Home Affairs. The motion before this hon. Court is therefore in the name of the Department of Home Affairs. Before moving on to the detail of the motion, I feel it would be beneficial to outline the progress being made on the building construction phase of the new facility. I am pleased to report that the construction is progressing on schedule and is estimated for completion, within the approved capital budget, by July this year. This will be followed by a general fitting-out phase, leading to a ready-for-occupation date of the end of October 2002. In respect of the information technology phase of the project, which is the subject of this motion, due to the very complex nature of the operational requirements of the three emergency services, it has not been possible to meet the original targets for seeking approval of this hon. Court. Further information on the equipment included in this phase, which forms the hub of the emergency services’ joint mobilising system, has been included in the briefing note circulated to hon. members. The process involved in reaching the point of producing a report and recommendation as to the preferred supplier status for carrying out a turnkey project for the supply, installation and commissioning, together with post-implementation support for the system, was also lengthy and complex, the reason for this being the amount of interest this project, which will still be the first of its kind in the British Isles, has generated. Seventeen companies were involved in the initial expressions of interest phase; of these companies, five were selected to go forward to the invitation-to-tender process. As a result of an intensive tender evaluation study, which included visits by the project team to operational sites, the recommendation accepted by the Strategic Management Group was that the contract for this phase be awarded to Intergraph Public Safety UK Limited, the contract sum being £1,190,000. The total expenditure for this phase of the project, which is the subject of the motion before this hon. Court, is for £1,520,000. The additional expenditure covers such items as equipment being procured outside the main contract, professional fees and client contingency. Full details are contained in the briefing note that has been circulated to hon. members. Subject to the approval of this hon. Court, the contract will be let with a ready-for-service date of March 2003. The revised overall project timescales mean that, including a migration period from existing control rooms to the new facility, the joint control room will go operational in June 2003. The overall capital budget provision for the project can be summarised as follows: design fees pre-contract £156,000; building construction £1,475,000; IT equipment £1,520,000; thus giving a total provision of £3,151,000. The original business case submitted in May 2000 estimated expenditure in the region of £3 million. During the July 2000 debate, and to the establishment of this facility, my predecessor as Minister for Home Affairs outlined the principles, benefits and objectives on which the original business case had been established. In summary, these were: the consolidation of the three existing emergency services’ control rooms into one Island-wide communications centre facility; improved emergency service call handling by the introduction of new technology; and to achieve economies of scale in the staffing and management of the facility by operating a joint control room with multi-disciplined civilian staff. I am pleased to confirm that these fundamental principles remain unchanged and that the members of both the Strategic Management Group and the project team continue to co-operate to achieve the successful completion of this project. I would also add that the effort of the various groups involved in the project is an excellent example of interdepartmental working. Mr President, this is the final phase in the establishment of the Emergency Services’ Joint Control Room. Despite the current situation with the company contracted for the supply of the digital trunk radio system, the department is confident that the radio system project will be completed. The establishment of the Emergency Services Joint Control Room, together with the implementation of the new digital trunk radio system, will complete the communications strategy of the emergency services, and its introduction will enhance the service delivered to the residents of this Island. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Michael. Mr Cannan: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: Yes. I am just wondering, given a sophisticated system such as this, what arrangements are going to be built into this for maintenance and repair of the system. Are we going to be dependent upon an off-Island company to come and respond to requirements? I am aware of current difficulties about servicing from off-Island, in regard to another information technology matter, and I rather think that we would learn from that and not get ourselves put in that situation. The President: Minister to reply. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. I thank the hon. member for Ayre for bringing up the subject of maintenance of a sophisticated radio system, and I would not think that on the Island there is the area where we can repair; I think we would have to bring off-Island people over to maintain this sophisticated equipment. We will not have the people over here. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you is printed at 5 on your order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Manx National Heritage — Large Object Store — Authorisation of Expenditure — Motion Carried Item 6. The Speaker, a member of the Manx Museum and National Trust, to move that: (a) Tynwald approves Manx National Heritage incurring expenditure not exceeding £1,165,000 for the purchase and fitting out of premises for the provision of a Large Object Store; and (b) authorises the Treasury to expend during the year ending 31st March 2002 a sum not exceeding £150,000 from the Consolidated Loans Fund to meet the cost of the above. The President: We move on to item 6, Large Object Store, and I call on the Speaker to move, please. The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. Ten years ago, the trustees of Manx National Heritage drew to the attention of the government a concern that an area of its professional responsibility with regard to the Island’s national museum collections was in danger of being compromised by a severe shortage of appropriate storage space. Since this time, the threat of the welfare of some aspects of the national collections has worsened to a level where irreplaceable objects of very considerable cultural and financial value are not accessible to the public or staff, and their physical well-being cannot be guaranteed. The validity of this project which is before the hon. members today and the actual principle have been a long-accepted matter for the government and have been included, with a nominal funding figure, for eight years in the government’s capital project programme. In view of the now urgent need to resolve this problem, the most recent submission identified the preferred solution of a new-build structure at a total cost of £2,130,000 or thereabouts. This costing was based upon a professional design team estimate of the provision of 20,000 square feet of storage space. The costing excluded a sophisticated air handling system, which is necessary to safeguard the long-term preservation of the objects, and excluded any necessary site acquisition costs. Entirely unexpectedly, since the submission to Treasury of the new-build option, the freehold of a storage building on the Balthane Industrial Estate has become available, which perfectly matches Manx National Heritage’s requirements and is priced at approximately £1 million less than the new-build option. This building meets the Manx National Heritage space specification and, in terms of its quality of internal air handling and security systems, is a slightly higher specification than had been allowed for in the new- build option cost. In addition, the freehold of the property includes an area of about 0.6 of an acre immediately adjacent, with full planning permission for additional storage building. The valuation has been supported by the government valuer when MNH made its approach. The acquisition of this building will resolve the storage requirements for the Island’s national collections and provide for the next 15 to 20 years of expansion. The acquisition represents a clear value-for-money option, compared with the other options which have been examined. Acquisition of the property will enable Manx National Heritage to properly undertake its statutory duty to collect and preserve the unique objects from the Island’s history and maintain them in correct conditions to ensure their survival for the present and future generations. Mr President, I beg to move the motion at number 6 on today’s order paper that stands in my name. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Eaghtyrane, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: I call on the hon. member of Council, Dr Mann. Dr Mann: Thank you, Mr President. I have every sympathy with Manx National Heritage in their proposal this afternoon. I think I have always, in the past, supported any moves that they have to develop their ability to store and exhibit their collection. However, I am in a difficult position because, although I did not speak in the budget debate yesterday, I certainly have considerable reservations on the capital programme. I am also aware of the fact that the majority of our primary schools are currently full to their planned capacity and, in the budgetary discussions that preceded the final determination, the measures - I thought, urgent measures - to extend very rapidly primary school provision were initially turned down or delayed, and after appeal we were given three. Now, I know that there was a debate earlier today, which, I think, underlined more than anything else the need for satisfactory primary provision - in fact, pre- primary provision - and I cannot be party to a proposal to create space to look at things of the past when we have urgent need for the present. It is not often that I feel strongly enough about something to deliberately vote against, but I am afraid I am going to vote against this, not because I do not think it is justifiable, but because there are urgent and pressing needs to accommodate the present and the future. The President: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I think the mover has fallen into the same sort of area that many people do in regard to National Heritage, and that is: the preservation of unique objects. The Isle of Man is special to us, but it is not that unique, and I would have suggested that a lot of the items that are deemed to be stored in this particular area are not necessarily unique to the Isle of Man. I am not saying they do not need to be stored, but it is this consideration all the time of going on about how unique we are, when a lot of what we are about - the Isle of Man is about - is not displayed in any place whatsoever: not the ordinary story, the ordinary history, of ordinary people in the Isle of Man. I know that the Manx Museum and National Trust have been after somewhere for a long time to store large objects, and have not been able to in the past, but I just wonder what sort of objects will be stored in this particular area. Will it be documents? Will it be large objects, and how large are these large objects? Because I know a lot of these particular objects have been lost in the past, and they might have been something which has developed over time and been developed by people here as being what you might call ‘unique’, but, in actual fact, they have been made somewhere else and they have been imported over the years. So, I am not sure what these unique objects are, and maybe the mover, in winding up this debate, could in actual fact tell us what these unique objects are, as opposed to being objects that should be preserved, or because they play a part in the history in the Isle of Man, rather than because they are unique in some way, made here and should be preserved here because they are simply unique. Now, there are issues, I think, raised by the member of Council with regard to this, but I would have thought that because we are looking to save money. . . and maybe some of these objects will be restored when, in the past, all they have been is photographed, but when they are put here and were stored here, where do they go after they have been there? Are they brought out every so often for display? Because there are many items that are given to the Manx Museum and National Trust and never see the light of day. So, I just wonder where they are going to be displayed. Another particular issue is that a lot of the items displayed are not items anyway, they are manufactured and therefore they are not objects which have been collected and then displayed. The President: Hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. I rise in support of the motion that is before us. I see this really as being a major opportunity for Manx National Heritage. As the original mover, my hon. colleague the Mr Speaker, indicated, they have been looking at an area to store some of their large objects for a number of years, and with the demise of the Eildon factory at Balthane, which is fitted with temperature control. . . the building really is not a pleasant one, it is just a big box, as you have seen from the photographs that have been supplied with the background papers, but, as a store for somebody like Manx National Heritage, it is really perfect, and it has proper temperature control inside so that the objects that will be housed there will be kept at the right sort of temperature and in the right type of humidity control. Now, having only had our budget debate yesterday, I am rather surprised that my hon. colleague, the member of Council, Dr Mann, feels that there are more urgent needs in education. I am surprised you did not make this comment yesterday. If there are more urgent needs in education, why is it not brought to our attention? There was a golden opportunity yesterday, and I think, like any other government department, if they do not come forward and make their case, well, it is very, very difficult to understand exactly what is going on. Education will always be an area which will require more spending, particularly if we are going to carry on increasing the school population, and I have always tried to be very supportive of what that department does, but I would take issue with my hon. colleague that it is also just as important to have one foot in the future as it is to have one foot in the past. I think that it is very important that we do recognise our national identity in the Isle of Man, and the whole framework of the way we think and the way we sell ourselves is allied to our heritage and our history, so I think it is equally important that each particular issue or item has its own proper place, and I think a case has been made for this objects store. Now, the hon. member for Peel questioned what sort of things these non-Manx things that are going to be housed here are. Well, my understanding is that part of the reason for this particular store is so that we can at last have a proper place to put some of our very, very rare, important and priceless objects like our Celtic crosses, our early Christian crosses, which are housed in areas which, in my view, are perhaps totally unsuitable. They do have to be moved on a regular basis, and that is when they are subject to damage. There are a load of objects in the national collection, and I think if they are given a proper storage facility there will be a better opportunity for these to be rotated and come onto show. But the problem at the moment is that because they are not really the easiest of things to move, they are left quietly in areas which are totally unsuitable for them. Now, I think this is a good way to spend the budget; if we went out to build this from scratch it would probably cost us twice as much as the amount that is on the paper today. I would just say to hon. members that a lot of these items are very, very valuable - and I would go as far as to say that some of them are priceless - and we have to act in a responsible manner and provide a proper framework and environment for them to be housed in, not just for this generation, but for future generations to come. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr President. If Manx National Heritage must have an air-conditioned storage building, then I would rather that they spend £1 million than £2 million (Two Members: Hear, hear.), but after that I am not quite sure whether this project warrants support or not. It is asserted that the purchase of the building and the attached land would be good value for money, and I think that has been a statement made by qualified professionals, and if that is the case then I accept that, but when I picked up this paper here and looked at this building which we have got before us here, sir, I thought we had the replacement for the prison on the agenda. (Laughter) Mr Downie: No, too many windows. Mr Quine: It is huge. This is a huge building, and it coincides with my idea of what a prison should look like, sir. (Laughter) But seriously, it is said that we need a storage area of 20,000 square feet. Now, it is not clear whether the alternative now proposed is of that dimension, so what I was going to ask the Speaker first of all is: where are these exhibits now? What storage space is committed to their custody at this point in time? And how does that equate to the square footage of this particular building? Secondly, I think I would like to know from the Speaker: what is the current rental of the accommodation which is being used to store these - according to the hon. member for West Douglas - priceless exhibits? What is the rent that is being committed to their storage at this point in time? The third fact that perhaps the Speaker could help me with is, of course. . . I am always a little wary when I get a Manx National Heritage proposal, because it is normally thumbs down to getting your toe in the door, and I am just wondering: are staff proposals going to ride on the back of this? Are we going to be back here in a couple of years’ time saying ‘Now we can put a floor in here; we can make two floors out of this; and X,Y,Z, and W, V’? I want to be quite clear in my mind: what is the totality of this proposition? Are we going to have a case made somewhere for staff, either by competing with our limited staff that we have available, because of the capping system, or are we going to have some bought-in resources? So, how does that revenue side stack up against this capital side so there is no misunderstanding there? And, in terms of the extra 0.6 acres of land: is that also going over to Manx National Heritage? Because I know what will happen if we do that, of course: we are going to have another huge something put there alongside it, and we will have an extension of what is even proposed here now. So, is that 0.6 acres going to be part of the transaction that is handed over to Manx National Heritage, or is that for an alternative use? If so, what alternative use have we got for that half acre - just over half an acre - of land? And last, but not least, I think this is a fair comment to direct at the Chief Minister, because I am sure he will be able to give us this overview: how does this fit in to government’s overall priorities? We have had mention of the need for additional educational facilities, and, admittedly, we are not talking of capital capacity here; we are talking of a straight purchase, but it is still money. It is still over £1 million, and, at the risk of standing on my own minister’s toes, I would say again that considerable sums of money are needed for drainage, within our own department, and that is not provided for to anything like the extent that is needed. So, I think the Chief Minister should be. . . I invite him to explain to us how this slots into the overall priority, government-wise, and within what forum and in what manner - to what extent - those comparisons have been drawn in order that this item should come forward here now. I appreciate, of course, that it is, and will be, held out to be an opportunity not to be missed. I appreciate that, but these things normally are held out to be an opportunity not to be missed, and I remain to be convinced. The President: Hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. I had intended to say a few bits on this, but was also driven to my feet by one or two comments put into the debate so far. I think, in all honesty, some comments are actually red herrings, luckily. We are talking about the national collection, currently in our museum, of this Island; our national heritage, our historical collections and so on that are special. I do not hold a view that our heritage is the same as anyone else’s, because we are unique and special, and we have a lot of unique and special things housed in those vaults, which I am sure is, to all intents and purposes, a terrible way to have to store things. But that is how it has been, and with the low priority on budgets that our national heritage has received, that is what we have had to resort to. I certainly know, for instance, that there are bundles and collections of letters and envelopes down there from the Duke of Atholl’s day, all stashed away- incorrectly stored, really. We do have a special chance here today, and it is making the most of an opportunity. I think we should be giving more priority to the heritage of this Island, and if there is an opportunity here, then we should take it. And I do not hold that it is nudging something off somebody else’s budget, because it has already been taken into account, and that is a big red herring and it is unfair. What I would also say is that it is quite obvious that our heritage is special, because it is bringing over business, it is bringing over films, it is bringing over tourism and it is one of the main elements and special things in our quality of life. If it was not, then we would not be doing so well, because it would not be recognised; but it is, and everyone here knows that, and I think it is a shame to treat it with the cursory whim of some of the comments we have had. If we had given it some more priority in the past - and I appreciate the budget has not been around to do it - I am sure that whoever was in charge of Manx National Heritage would have instituted better ways of storing and displaying things, and we may well have had one or two more options, not on the same grand scale as the House of Manannan perhaps, but some more visitor centres for folk to come and enjoy and for the people of this Island to come and see what is stashed in the vaults up at Crellin’s Hill there. That is the way I have always viewed it, and the member from Peel is quite right: it is hidden from the public view and it is a shame, and I am sure everyone in the museum will say the same thing. Give them a bit more money and they will put on some good centres that will be of benefit to the community. A Member: Hear, hear. The President: Hon. member of Council, Mr Waft. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. I am fully in support of this store. What I would say to the member for Ayre, when he mentioned the opportunity not to be missed’ is: ‘Well, what is wrong with that? (A Member: Hear, hear.) I mean, we missed so many opportunities in the past (Mr Henderson: Absolutely.) (A Member: Hear, hear.) it is nice to be able to take advantage of them when they do come along. The only thing I would mention is the problem, perhaps - probably - not in my area, but. . . I know the Arts Council have got a shop in the arcade, and at least they do get out in the community with the paintings, going to schools and different areas, and they are on show for the public. But what I would say, with regard to this suggestion of putting these things in a store, is that what I would like to see is more rotation of the things that are in the museum and that need to get about the public of the Isle of Man on a more regular basis, on a rotation basis. That would be much more acceptable for everyone to see, on a daily basis and not just on a special trip to the museum, and I fully support the professional staff who would be able to decide what they are going to keep and what they are not going to keep. Somebody not too far from me would fill that store with no problem whatsoever, but there are professionals who make those decisions for us and I think they should be given our support. Thank you, Mr President. A Member: Hear, hear. The President: Hon. member for Michael, Mr Cannan. Mr Cannan: Mr President, during my membership of Manx National Heritage last year, this matter was obviously discussed on several occasions, and I sought an assurance that, in giving my support to it, the public would be able to visit the store and see some of these wonderful objects that have been hidden away and have never seen the light of day for years and years and years. I am a bit disappointed that there is no indication in our briefing paper that, when all the objects are put in the store, members of the public will be able to have any sort of look at what is stored away. I am not asking for museum-type displays, but at least allow people in to know what we have, because here we are being told - and we were told when I was there - that there are all these priceless artifacts and objets d’art et cetera, and there may well be - I am sure there are - but nobody ever sees them. So what is the point of storing something away that will never ever be seen? And I think it is important, if we are spending this £1 million, that at least people can - if only by appointment - go and have a look round the store and see what there is, because there is no inventory to my knowledge. Nobody really knows what is being stored and what we have or have not got, and I would like the mover to answer some of those questions. But in particular, if I am going to support this, I want to be able to know that in this huge building - and we have all seen the size of it - people will be able, if only by appointment, to go and see what is actually stored away and what is part of our heritage. The President: Lord Bishop. The Lord Bishop: Mr President, a few years ago, in the parish of Maughold, it was decided to preserve a very precious and ancient preaching cross, which was in the churchyard, by placing it inside the church. Now, those of you who go regularly to Maughold church will know that it is quite a small building. Nevertheless, the preaching cross was removed from the churchyard and provision was made for it - with some difficulty - inside Maughold Church, where it is preserved from the weathering of the elements, which were treating it badly. It is a delightful example of its kind and it is now in a better place and being preserved from the elements, but, nevertheless, it is in a very small position and therefore, I believe, not always seen to its best advantage. There are many other examples in churches, as again you will well know that many Manx crosses, which we talk a lot about, are in some of our more ancient churches around the Island. There again, they are not always, because of the size of the building, seen to their best advantage. If you go to Lonan Old Church, you will find in the graveyard there a wonderful Celtic cross, which is one of the oldest of its kind in the Island, and that is not doing too well in the elements either, but it is there and one often thinks that perhaps it would be better placed somewhere else, in a position of not only safety but of better keeping. And there must be many examples of that sort of thing, if you think of the Island and the stones and the crosses - and not only religious ones, but all sorts of examples could be given. I am sure the mover will perhaps enlighten us a bit more, as the member for Peel asked in her speech, but I do feel there are many examples of where such a store could be a good provision for the better use and maintenance of artifacts of this kind. I have to say that it can only be in the last 15 or 20 years that many of us have become heritage-minded. Until then, the treasures of the Isle of Man have been mostly quite disregarded, and if I mention Bishopscourt, you will have an example of how I have a certain chip on my shoulder about this. But if we had been more enlightened, or you had been more enlightened, or they had been more enlightened (Interjections) - Mrs Crowe: Or the Church of England. The Lord Bishop: - I would still be living in a better (Two Members: Hear, hear.) place and preserving it for the nation, and we could have done a darn sight better with it than the various owners that have had it since. (A Member: Hear, hear.) But, nevertheless, the point I am making is not a personal one; it is heritage. It is because we had no regard for what that building might have meant, having been on that site since about 1300, and just lost to the nation in many ways. So, I believe that we ought not to make too many points against the motion. Talking of priorities, we do spend an awful lot of money in this building without the bat of an eyelid. I often sit here thinking, ‘Gosh, £5 million for that’ or ‘£20 million for that’ or ‘£150 million for this’, and we pass it on the nod. And when tourists come to the Island, whether you like it or not, they are not going to say, ‘What a wonderful IRIS scheme they have got’ (Laughter); they will say, ‘How marvellous is Rushen Abbey?’ (A Member: Hear, hear.) That is what they look at and they will remember that, but you can keep your IRIS scheme and all the millions we have spent on it. It may be good for us - of course it is - but nevertheless, visibly, and in a heritage sense and in a community sense and in selling-the-Island sense, let us keep our own sense of values and not be so cavilling about spending money on heritage. (A Member: Hear, hear.) The President: Hon. member, Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I rise really to ask the mover of the resolution if he could enlighten me whether, if the 20,000 square feet of storage space, which is quite a large area, will not be utilised all on day one, it will be available. Mention has been made of the Arts Council: we have an art collection, which is on loan most of the time, but there is always a certain section of it in store, mostly unsatisfactorily, and within a joined-up government surely there is a possibility for an interchange of use. I raise the point because, if you like, the history of MNH is rather insular: we are not part of government. And if we have a large store, which should be getting utilised to the full, then I would suggest it is a case for joined-up government. The other thing is: why the 0.6 of an acre? Now, this is on an industrial, very expensive site, and that is a valuable addition to what I would call the government portfolio. I suggest that, if it remains with MNH, it will become an asset for them to use in some other way. And is this right? I think that, if we were buying it, I do not mind them getting the store and suitable parking arrangements for what I would call the vans to bring it backwards and forwards. And have we got vans, or is that the next phase of the equation? I am mindful to support the proposition, and I would like, in a genuine sense, to ask the mover of the resolution: will it be open for other departments of government who have a storage problem too? And let us face it: storage is at a premium, whether you are running hospitals, whether you are running schools, whether you are running Arts Councils, or whatever. There is a premium and there is always a shortage, so I would urge: is the 20,000 fully utilised with what we have got, and if that is the case, is it owned or is it proposed to sell off what we have got or to use it in another way? Perhaps he would just flesh it out a bit, but I am mindful to support the resolution. The President: Hon. member, Mr Crowe. Mr Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. As a trustee of Manx National Heritage, I obviously rise to support this, not only for the benefit of storing large objects, but I do believe it is good value for money. We have heard that new-build would cost about £2 million; we are buying it - or can buy it, if the motion is approved - for just over £1 million. We are getting a high-quality building with low maintenance, and it is very good value for money, as has been professionally valued, and it is stated as such. There is, and there will be, a saving on lease costs, because I believe there are temporary buildings being rented at the present time where these large objects are being stored, and it does give this opportunity to have a single large object store for all of these collections, which are for the benefit of Manx National Heritage and for the Island. As the Lord Bishop has said, we need to look after our heritage. The President: Hon. member Mr Corkill, the Chief Minister. Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. I rise to my feet obviously to support the motion, but also in response to comments from the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, who has thrown down the challenge, effectively, with regard to how this fits in with government policy. Can I draw his attention to the fact that this has actually been in the capital programme, floating around, for many years and, as things do, they tend to float to the top eventually. And I am quite pleased that this is one that is eventually going to have a tick in the box, because in all my time in the Treasury, every year, we go through the budget round - Mrs Hannan: Does not mean it is right. Mr Corkill: - and it would be mentioned at policy time as well, when Manx National Heritage would come through the door. They were disappointed time and time again that sites that were potentially available to them were then thwarted at the last hurdle. They thought they were getting the old meat plant at one time, because that was going to be a redundant building and it was seen as a suitable use for something that was becoming redundant, but then BSE came along. There has been a catalogue of incidents where they have been disappointed, and so I am quite pleased that . . . well, I am not pleased that this factory, in a way, has become available, because that is another story. But it is available. I am quite encouraged by the comment from the member of Ayre that he thinks that an air- conditioned building is suitable for prisoners. I think it is a major step forward (Laughter) that he accepts an air-conditioning system is beneficial, because obviously the picture is not a very pretty picture and it looks like the temperature in there is probably about 200 degrees without the air-conditioning - Mr Quine: We can see that. Mr Corkill: - and I would have thought those would have been the conditions that the hon. member was alluding to with regard to the treatment of prisoners, knowing his views on such matters. In terms of priority, it is opportunistic, and prioritisation is not an exact science. We go through the budgetary process and we try to come up with the absolute priorities, and that is casting government policy with education, with health, and also housing at this stage. Those are key to yesterday’s budget and those are well-provided for in the budget; this is a one-off opportune cost. If we were having to construct this, then I think it would be a different priority balance, but as the hon. member of Council, Mr Waft, has said: why not take the opportunity? And I think that is the view that I have and, I hope, other hon. members have. The point, of course, that the hon. member for Ayre really homes in on is that Manx National Heritage is not really a part of government: it is partly, but it is not totally, a part of government. A Member: It should be. Mr Corkill: And that is a debate in itself, as to whether they should be nearer to government and part of executive government. I know there are members in this Court who feel that they should; the other side of that coin is that there are a lot of individuals and groups of people who contribute to Manx National Heritage in the way that it is. They do have statutory responsibilities in terms of looking after artifacts, which, they have said, in their case they are struggling to achieve. I do know that there are situations where large objects may be in private ownership, ready to be bequeathed to the nation, but there are no facilities to take them to, and that the facilities that they do use at the moment, in part, are leaky, and they are in temporary accommodation elsewhere, which attracts a rental. So I am pleased that they have eventually, after many years, identified a permanent home, and I hope hon. members will support the motion. The President: Mr Speaker to reply. The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I am a bit surprised at some of the comments that have been put forward - and I very much link to the comments made by the Lord Bishop where, in fact, he said he was surprised - when here we have something that is actually saving money and is a way forward in terms of providing a provision we need, and yet members seem to be concerned about it - or some members are anyway. A comprehensive - or relatively comprehensive - briefing went to members, which provided as much information as we felt would give them a flavour of what the situation was, and I thank those members who have supported me and I thank the other members who are linked with Manx National Heritage in terms of being on the executive committee and being trustees or co-opted members. Can I say that I was a bit surprised by the contribution from the hon. member of Council, Dr Mann. Whilst he made it clear that he has every sympathy with MNH for the proposal, he felt he was in a difficult position and has reservations about the capital programme. I would have thought, because of his reservations that he expressed about the capital programme, that he in fact would have said that this is what we should be doing, because this will stop us interfering with not only the capital programme as such but, in fact, more importantly, with the building industry, who he would look to to provide the facilities that he wishes to see - as we all do - to improve our primary schools and, of course, make better provision for pre-school facilities. But this does not impinge on that. This does not in any way cause any problem, as far as I am aware, to the Department of Education. It is not a matter of ‘Well, this school will not get that because MNH are going to get this’. And I would say to the hon. member of Council, Dr Mann, that I for one have always been a supporter of provisions for the schools, and have promoted them generally and supported them ever since I have been in this hon. Court, but what we need to keep in mind is that as far as the provision of this is, concerned I can put the argument the other way: we are actually able to afford this because of the considerable underspend in the capital programme in the year 2001-2002, of which some will have been - not for anyone’s specific fault - from education. So quite clearly, whereas the Minister for the Treasury yesterday said how much had been put in to reserve because of the underspend - or had been left in reserve - this £1 million - or just over £1 million - you could argue is part of that. It does not matter; it comes out of the pot that we can afford it. But I would say to hon. members, as it was flagged up ‘Oh, is it because it is an opportunity?’: yes, it is an opportunity. As the hon. member of Council, Mr Waft, said: for goodness’ sake, sometimes we get accused of not taking opportunities when they arise. Here is one, and we are most fortunate to have a building that has come on the market and that actually meets the requirements which are, you could say - if I dare use the term, and I will not get told off by the hon. member for Peel - somewhat unique, because we require special air- conditioning and we require special conditions to store some of these artifacts in. Here we have a factory, unfortunately, that has become available, but which actually has the facilities we require and, in fact, to a higher standard than we require, available on the market. That means that we can buy a building which - and to answer a point that was made - in fact is, according to the information I have, almost exactly of the space requirements that we need for our purposes, and here it is, and it is £1 million less than what we budgeted for, and we had not budgeted for the air-conditioning system. So, hon. members, yes, you can say, ‘No, we don’t think the museum should have this’. What will we have achieved? Nothing. Here is an opportunity; should we grasp it? Well, sometimes opportunities only come once in your life. The answer is: yes, you should grasp it. Is it a waste of money? My view is, as some of the other members have said: no, it isn’t. It is value for money, because we are opportune to get this building, which is here at the right time, and it is a building that we require. What I would just clarify for hon. members, because the overall vote, of course, shows £1.165 million, is that the actual building and the freehold acquisition which includes the 0.6 of an acre, is £950,000, and the £215,000 in addition is to enable us to convert and provide security and to fit the building out for the requirements of the museum - Mr Anderson: Widen the doors. The Speaker: - and I believe, therefore, that what we are getting is good value for money. Now, the hon. member for Glenfaba has indicated widening the doors; if we have only got to widen the doors, and we still get it at £1 million less than the purpose-built, it is still good value for money. Even farmers widen doors, and they make things fit to make things work as they move on and they need their requirements to be met. So that is not a big problem because of the structure of the building, and if it needs to be done - and I do not know if it needs to be done, is the honest answer - then surely what matters is that here is a building, it is of a scale that we require, it has got air-conditioning that will meet our requirements and it will see us well into the future. To answer the hon. member of Council, Mr Lowey, about whether other parties can use it for storage, the honest answer is: I do not know. First and foremost, it is there for the requirements of Manx National Heritage. Whether or not we are able to do anything else, I do not know. It is certainly an issue I am happy for the trustees to consider, but let us be honest about it; our first call is to ensure that we have a building to meet our statutory requirements, and I would thank the Chief Minister for the comment he made, because we should not lose sight of it. This is not just MNH plucking something out of the air something to say, ‘Let us have something’; we have statutory responsibilities. I now have, as a trustee, statutory responsibilities to ensure that we safeguard the Island’s artifacts, and that is basically, whether you like it or not, the reality. Now, other members mentioned, ‘Where are the artifacts at the moment?’ Well, my understanding is that they are all over the place, in whatever, to use the term, ‘cubbyhole’ we can find to put them in, and they are squashed in, they are not even displayed, they cannot be displayed, they are in conditions that are poor and they are in damp conditions; fine, we can leave that to carry on if you want, and one day there will be a member of this House who will stand on their feet and criticize MNH for allowing something important to fall into pieces and be lost to the nation. So, it is very easy, at this stage, to say, ‘What the heck, you know, we don’t really . . .’; yes, we do. We, this Court, have a responsibility to ensure that the artifacts that have been kept for the nation are, in fact, kept in good condition. The hon. member for Peel picked up on one word which I mentioned once - because I thought I actually must have mentioned it a lot of times - and I was a bit disappointed where the hon. member was raising the issue because I said ‘unique’. I thought, ‘Heck, I must have said it quite a few times when I did my presentation’, and I read back through what I said, and I mentioned it once, right at the end. And some of these artifacts will be unique. They may not be unique to the Isle of Man, and some will be unique to the Isle of Man. The point is that it does not matter; what matters is that if they are in the safekeeping of the museum, MNH has a statutory responsibility to look after them. We cannot just take them to the tip and dump them. So, we have a responsibility to the nation in that area, and I hope that that helps to respond to that issue. Now, the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, mentioned where the exhibits are now. I think I have covered that. We do have storage areas that would be rented, and I thank the hon. member of Council, Mr Crowe, for responding to that issue in general terms, because generally, yes, there will be some savings. I know of at least one unit we rent out, and we will be able to relinquish that and therefore consolidate into this one building. Extra staff: if only! Manx National Heritage is struggling to meet its actual requirements today with the staff we have. As far as I am aware, there are no additional staff in the proposal for this building. It is a storage area. It is where artifacts are to be looked after, maintained and stored. As far as the issue that the hon. member for Michael, Mr Cannan, mentioned is concerned: yes, it could be open to the public. Whether or not we can is another issue to be considered. I have no problem because, like the hon. member for Michael, I do believe that as much as possible of what is held by MNH should be available for viewing by the public. Now, that might not be able to be viewed every day of the week, because we have not the area to do that, but it certainly should be able to happen on occasions, even if there are special open days to allow people into such premises to see behind the scenes and see our special artifacts. I have no problem in that, because who owns them? The people of the Isle of Man. The trustees are MNH; they hold them for the nation, and therefore the nation has a right - Mr Cannan: Then let the nation see them. The Speaker: - as far as possible, to see them. So, certainly my view is that if we can, I would certainly encourage it, and if we can, I hope we do it. As far as the 0.6 of an acre is concerned: is that for MNH? At this moment in time, yes, it is. Now, whether or not it may be of use to somebody else - for example, it backs onto the airport - that may be so, but what did the hon. member expect us to do? Not buy the 0.6 of an acre, and leave a piece of land between the airport and this unit, and say, ‘Well, government does not own it’ and let somebody else own it privately? What sense is there in that? There is no sense in that. It is much better for government to own it, and if we have not learnt from one mistake over the years, hon. members, why are we having problems with housing, just for example? Because we do not own land. (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) When land becomes available, if it is opportune, you buy it, and this is one situation where I would suggest to hon. members that it is opportune. So, I would hope that hon. members will support this. I do believe that the opportunity of buying it is important. Regarding the issue that the Lord Bishop raises about the storage of important artifacts and so on: clearly MNH, where it can, will endeavour to assist to ensure that special artifacts are safeguarded, and clearly, if that means those objects being presented to the MNH - being given to them on lease or loan or whatever it might be - as I understand, it those opportunities are there and have always been there. So, I would hope hon. members will see this as a very prudent purchase, an opportune purchase and one that will benefit the nation of the Isle of Man, and one which, I would have hoped, members would welcome, because in fact it is purchasing a ready-built structure, available today, which will meet our requirements. I beg to move. The President: Hon. members, the motion is printed on your order paper at item no. 6. Those in favour please aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs Anderson, Cannan, Rodan, Quayle, Rimington, Gill, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Houghton, Henderson, Cretney, Duggan, Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Messrs Downie, Shimmin, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell, Singer, Corkill, Earnshaw, Gelling and the Speaker - 22 Against: Mr Quine - 1 The Speaker: Mr President, the item standing at no. 6 on the order paper carries in the House of Keys, with 22 votes for and 1 vote against. In the Council - For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs Lowey, Waft, Kniveton, Radcliffe, Mrs Christian and Mr Crowe - 7 Against: Dr Mann - 1 The President: With 7 for and 1 against in the Council, hon. members, the motion therefore carries. European Communities (Terrorism Measures) Order 2002 — Approved Item 7. The Chief Minister to move: That the European Communities (Terrorism Measures) Order 2002 [SD No 111/02] b e approved. The President: Hon. members, we turn now to item 7 on the order paper and I call on the Chief Minister to move. Mr Corkill: Mr President, as hon. members will be aware, there have been various sanctions measures put in place by the United Nations and the European Union in respect of Afghanistan, and those sanctions measures have all been implemented in the Isle of Man. Now both the United Nations and the EU are seeking to target their measures more specifically against those individuals and organisations involved with international terrorism. To this end, the Security Council of the United Nations approved Resolution 1390, which imposes restrictive measures against the Taliban and Al-Qa’ida. The Al-Qa’ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) (Isle of Man) Order 2002, before this Court for the information of members today, implements those measures on the Island. The member states of the European Union have, in turn, adopted a regulation concerning a freeze on the funds and other economic assets of those persons and organisations identified as being involved in terrorist activities. The Isle of Man Government wishes to implement this EU regulation in the Island, with appropriate modifications by way of the order before the Court today. In accordance with section 2(a) of the European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973, the order has been made by the Council of Ministers and now has come before this Court for approval. The Isle of Man Government seeks to keep abreast of international measures in the area of terrorism and to apply equivalent measures in the Island. It is important that the Isle of Man cannot be used by those who seek to further their aims through violence and destruction. I would therefore ask that this hon. Court support the motion and I beg to move, sir. The Speaker: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I am interested because this is from the Council of the European Union. The United Kingdom has brought in legislation, which is anti-terrorism legislation, and obviously the European communities and the European Union have decided to do it in a slightly different way, by bringing in restrictions and placing restrictions upon the Taliban and Al-Qa’ida. But they have not brought in legislation. So, could I ask the Chief Minister if we are implementing these and then, presumably, he is also going to implement anti- terrorism legislation as well? And I am wondering why we are doing both when no-one else in the European area, except the UK, is. It is concerning also that the member for Onchan asked a question about Palestine and Israel, and the Chief Minister responded by saying that he was not involved in that; and yet some of the issues that are going on there have mandates from the United Nations against what is happening - what Israel is doing - but there does not seem to be an introduction of any sort of restrictions on what Israel is doing or an implementation of the mandates that the United Nations have introduced. There seems to be two standards here; one for one and one for something else. The President: Chief Minister. Mr Corkill: The hon. member refers to anti-terrorist legislation. There is a draft Bill, which will be considered by the branches in due course, and yes, that is in response to world events in recent times. I would suggest that is a debate for another place at another time. The hon. member for Peel is right that this order applies a European Community Council regulation; that is explicit in the order. The Isle of Man Government is doing that to make sure that we are not used as a back door, because, although we are not part of the European Union, for many purposes of trade we have access throughout the EU. We have finances flowing through this Island that may flow in and out of the EU. There is that freedom, and so I think it would be unfortunate if the Isle of Man were to be out of step in such an important international issue, and that is why this order is before us. The hon. member refers to the dreadful situation in the Middle East, but I do not believe that that is relevant to this particular order. As horrible as that situation is there - and I do take on board the hon. member’s comments that my colleague from Onchan, Mr Karran, raised this at Question Time in another place - I do not believe it is relevant to this order, and I would ask hon. members to approve this order as on the agenda paper, sir. The President: Hon. members, the motion put before you is that the European Communities (Terrorism Measures) Order 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. European Communities (Zimbabwe Sanctions) (Application) Order 2002 — Approved Item 8. The Chief Minister to move: That the European Communities (Zimbabwe Sanctions) (Application) Order 2002 [SD No 139/02] be approved. The President: Item 8. Again, for the Chief Minister to move. Mr Corkill: Mr President, the situation in Zimbabwe, under the r≥gime of President Mugabe, has been of concern to a large section of the international community for a number of years. In recent months, many people expressed fears that this year’s presidential election would not be run in a fair and democratic manner. We now know that President Mugabe has been returned to power, and there have been stories of violence, intimidation and vote-rigging. International observers have described the election as neither free nor fair. Prior to the election, the head of the European Union’s mission to monitor the election was expelled from Zimbabwe and observers from several EU states were refused admission to the country. This action prompted the EU to adopt a regulation which implemented a freeze on the funds of certain individuals connected with the government of Robert Mugabe and prohibited the export to Zimbabwe of items that may be used for internal repression. The Isle of Man Government wishes to adopt equivalent measures and the purpose of the order before the Court today is to implement the EU regulation, with appropriate modifications in the Island. In accordance with section 2(a) of the European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973, the order has been made by the Council of Ministers and now has come to this Court for approval. The government wishes to add its support to the international measures designed to persuade President Mugabe to end repression and violence in Zimbabwe. I would therefore ask that hon. members support this motion also. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe. Mrs Crowe: I beg to second. Thank you. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 8 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Human Rights Act 2001 (First Protocol) Order 2002 — Approved Item 9. The Chief Minister to move: That the Human Rights Act 2001 (First Protocol) Order 2002 [SD No 110/02] be approved. The President: Chief Minister, item 9, please. Mr Corkill: Mr President, the European Convention on Human Rights has, over the years since its adoption, been amended and augmented by the attachment of various protocols. The United Kingdom has extended its ratification of these protocols, with our agreement, to include the Isle of Man. However, with the enactment of human rights legislation by this hon. Court, it has come to light that the United Kingdom’s ratification of protocol 1 was not extended to the Island. The purpose of this order is to include the first protocol rights - and they are the peaceful enjoyment of property, the right to education and the right to free and fair elections - in the basket of rights protected by the Human Rights Act 2001. It is apparent that the rights added to the convention by this protocol are significant, and its extension to the Island was sought by the Council of Ministers and has now been confirmed. This has included a reservation in terms similar to that made by the United Kingdom, so that the obligation to respect the rights of parents to ensure education and training in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions is accepted only in so far as it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. When the Human Rights Act 2001 comes into force next year, it will allow people to rely on their human rights in the Isle of Man, rather than taking the long, and perhaps costly, route to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It will also make it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which contravenes those rights. The order which has come before this Court today, Mr President, for approval will ensure that, from that time, people will be able to access these three important rights in the same way. I would therefore ask hon. members to support the motion. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe. Mrs Crowe: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Could I ask the hon. Chief Minister: on the education side of this particular Human Rights Act in his introduction, does it mean that people are entitled to primary education or does it mean they are entitled to secondary education? Does it mean that mature students are entitled to education if they ask for it? Does it mean, for example, that courses that are available at the college, shall we say for sighted people, should be made available for people who are visually impaired as well? Because there does seem to be here a sentence which says ‘the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure in the Isle of Man’; could that be a reason for turning round and saying we will not provide a course for blind people because it is going to be too expensive? And that could be an excuse, whatever the cost is likely to be. Will the college of education, for example, be obliged to prepare these courses and ensure that staff are available to train people? Could the Chief Minister please expand, perhaps, on what responsibility this does put onto the education department, and also what the meaning of ‘unreasonable public expenditure’ is? How can that be interpreted? The President: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I wonder if the Chief Minister could confirm that the government will be taking action on the right to free elections? Article 3 says that the high contracting parties undertake to hold free elections, at reasonable intervals, by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. Will he ensure that every person has one vote? And will he ensure that the legislature is elected by the people? The President: Chief Minister to reply. Mr Corkill: Right. I have not got the details with me this afternoon, Mr President, of the Education Act, which was recently passed through this Court and which embodies a number of the rights to education, but certainly the way I understand this right to education - I mean, it is in the order and I will read it out - is that ‘No person shall be denied the right to education.’ In other words, the ability to avail themselves of education is my understanding of that. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the state shall respect the rights of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. This article is a broad right. The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, asks me specific details about the College of Further Education in particular, and certainly I am quite sure that the fact that someone is blind or of poor sight should not be an encumbrance to them accessing the education that they, as an individual, need. The practicalities of providing that, I cannot comment on. There may be a specific case that the hon. member is alluding to - I am not sure - but certainly I would be very interested to know, and I am sure the Minister for Education would, if there are people who, because of a physical limitation, are being denied the education they need. This article is quite clear: no person shall be denied the right to education. The hon. member talked about age groups as well. I would say that this refers to all people of all ages; that is the way I understand it. Now, the hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, has, on many occasions, flagged up her desire for a popularly-elected Legislative Council. Mrs Hannan: Both Houses. Mr Corkill: What, both Houses? Mrs Hannan: Yes. Mr Corkill: Right. Mrs Hannan: Equal. Mr Corkill: Can I just say that I will read article 3, the right to free elections: ‘. . . undertake to hold free elections, at reasonable intervals, by secret ballot. . .’ Surely the House of Keys elections that we have just not long gone through do absolutely comply with that article already. That is nothing new. If the hon. member is unhappy, as I know she is, with the way that the Legislative Council is then voted upon, on a secondary ballot, effectively, by the House of Keys, I do not think this afternoon is an opportune moment to talk about that constitutional debate. It was resolved not to do that in a debate in another place on several occasions last year. The hon. member makes a point; I do not believe it has impact on the need today for us to ratify this article 3, so I would obviously ask the hon. member to support the motion. Whether the Isle of Man, in its endeavours, goes as far down this road as she would wish, is a debate for another day, but I understand what she is saying. My view is that the system that we have works pretty well, but I am in danger of sparking a debate at that point. I beg to move the motion in my name, sir. The President: Hon. members, the motion therefore is printed at 9 on the order paper that I put before you. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Road Transport (Marking of Vehicles) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 10. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Road Transport (Marking of Vehicles) Regulations 2002 [SD No 50/02] b e approved. The President: Now, hon. members, we turn to item 10 and I call on the Minister for Transport to move. Mr Shimmin. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. This is the second batch of regulations to implement the Road Transport Act 2001 from 1st April 2002; there were 7 sets approved at February’s Tynwald and there are 10 sets today. All were made following the consultations, required by section 62(5) of the Act, between the Road Transport Licensing Committee and such representative bodies as the department thinks fit. Where desirable, and in the interests of good government and practical legislation, all these draft regulations were amended, if necessary, to take results of the consultation into account. Moving on to item 10, sir: these regulations replace corresponding provisions contained in previous legislation relating to the marking of public service vehicles and hackney carriages. The reason for introducing these regulations is to regulate the markings of the various classes of public passenger vehicles and to provide for PPV identity plates as a means of identifying a PPV which is entitled to be used under an operator’s disc. Those plates will also be used to indicate the vehicle’s seating capacity and in the case of a large bus, its standing capacity and weight. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 10. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Road Transport (Driver Licensing) (Exemption) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 11. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) (Exemption) Regulations 2002 [SD No 86/02] be approved. The President: Item 11. Minister for Transport. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. These regulations replace, from 1st April 2002, corresponding provisions contained in previous legislation relating to drivers of coaches. These grant to a visiting PPV driver a temporary exemption for one month from the requirement to hold a vocational driver licence issued by the RTLC. This is in the interest of facilitating coach travel tourism in the Island, and I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 11. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Road Transport (Continuance of Registration or Licence on Death etc.) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 12. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Road Transport (Continuance of Registration or Licence on Death etc.) Regulations 2002 [SD No 87/02] be approved. The President: Item 12. Minister for Transport. Mr Shimmin: Sir, these regulations provide for the continuance of licences and registration where a PPV business is affected by certain major, often traumatic, events, or where a business is transferred by sale, such as upon planned retirement or takeover. This is primarily to enable a business owned by an individual person or family, such as a taxi business or private hire business, to continue as a going concern, notwithstanding the events which have occurred to the family or the sale of the business to someone else. I beg to move. The President: Mr Quine -? Mrs Cannell: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 12 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Road Transport Operators (Companies and Partnerships) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 13. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Road Transport Operators (Companies and Partnerships) Regulations 2002 [SD No 88/02] be approved. The President: Item 13. Minister for Transport. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, and in gratitude to my departmental members, I will continue. The regulations here introduce provisions relating to those road transport operators which are companies or partnerships operating a business of carrying passengers. I beg to move, sir. The President: Hon. member for Douglas East. Mrs Cannell: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. members, item 13. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Road Transport Operators (Registration or Licence Conditions) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 14. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Road Transport Operators (Registration or Licence Conditions) Regulations 2002 [SD No 89/02] be approved. The President: Item 14. Minister, please. Mr Shimmin: Mr President, these replace corresponding provisions contained in previous legislation relative to attaching conditions to public service vehicle licences, road service licences and hackney carriage licences. These regulations will enable the RTLC to attach four particular categories of conditions to grants of operator registration or an operator’s licence. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The President: Those in favour of item 14 please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Public Passenger Vehicles (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 15. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Public Passenger Vehicles (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2002 [SD No 92/02] be approved. The President: Item 15. Mr Shimmin. Mr Shimmin: Item 15, sir. These regulations make transitional arrangements for licences held under existing hackney and PSV legislation. The regulations provide for the continuation of existing PSV and hackney businesses under the new legislation and are intended to provide a smooth transition for them to the new r≥gime of licensing and registration. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 15 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Road Transport (Operator’s Discs and Plying for Hire Plates) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 16. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Road Transport (Operator’s Discs and Plying for Hire Plates) Regulations 2002 [SD No 93/02] be approved. The President: Mr Shimmin, move 16, please. Mr Shimmin: Mr President, these regulations replace corresponding provisions contained in previous legislation relative to old-style PSV licence discs and hackney carriage plates. The purpose of these regulations is to identify a PPV as being used on a road by a particular operator, and so display on the vehicle the authority by which it is being used. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Douglas East. Mrs Cannell: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The President: The motion, hon. members, is at 16 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Road Transport Licensing Committee (General) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 17. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Road Transport Licensing Committee (General) Regulations 2002 [SD No 94/02] be approved. The President: We turn, then, to 17, and again I call on the Minister for Transport to move. Mr Shimmin: These regulations replace corresponding provisions, as in the previous cases. They make further provision regarding the procedures of the Road Transport Licensing Committee. They specify that the register to be maintained by the committee of all registered operators, and the list of licensed operators, shall be kept on computer and in the case of the list of licensed operators, shall include the particulars required to be included in an operator’s licence. The register and list are to be available for inspection by the public, and so they should be in a visible and legible form. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. member Mrs Cannell. Mrs Cannell: I am happy to second, Mr President. The President: The motion, hon. members, is at 17 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Public Passenger Vehicles (Ongoing Fitness) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 18. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Public Passenger Vehicles (Ongoing Fitness) Regulations 2002 [SD No 90/02] b e approved. The President: Item 18. Mr Shimmin: These regulations correspond to vehicle fitness notification and testing requirements under existing legislation for PSVs and hackney carriages. The regulations make provision for the ongoing fitness of public passenger vehicles between their annual tests in connection with applications to the Treasury licensing office for vehicle licences. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The President: The motion, hon. members, is at 18 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Public Passenger Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 19. The Minister for Transport to move: That the Public Passenger Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 2002 [SD No 91/02] be approved. The President: Mr Shimmin, item 19, please. Mr Shimmin: Mr President, these replace corresponding provisions contained in previous legislation relating to the carrying capacity of public service vehicles. These regulations introduce the requirement that, like buses and minibuses, taxis and private hire cars must not be driven in excess of their carrying capacity. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Douglas East. Mrs Cannell: Mr President, I am happy to second, sir. The President: Hon. member Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. Just when the minister thought it was safe (Laughter); he certainly is not. I have watched these orders sail through, and the comments from my hon. colleague opposite, who unfortunately is not here, of Tynwald being used as a rubber stamp for the executive, spring to mind, but I shall not be using them. Perhaps. What I will be pointing out, though, is that at item 19 ‘That the Public Passenger Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 2002 be approved’, I would direct the hon. Court, with your permission, Mr President, to page 18 of the explanatory memoranda that were circulated to all members prior to our sitting. And it is on page 18, section 5. The regulations continue to allow three schoolchildren who are seated to be counted as two seated passengers, but the current restriction of this concession to children under 14 is removed - so I guess that is taking it up to 18, if 18 is the criterion for a schoolchild, or 19 if you are an upper sixth-former - as being unenforceable and not always appropriate in relation to the size of the children. Instead, the new regulation makes it lawful for three schoolchildren of any age, who occupy two seats, to be counted as two passengers if they are properly seated. The schoolchildren must be carried to or from the school premises. Well, that sounds innocuous enough, I suppose, but when you think about the trouble that we have been having lately on the school buses, what we are doing here is giving licence, as far as I am concerned, to the bus company to carry on with the sardine situation that we have been having with schoolkids. Now, I appreciate that we have had some difficulty with the school buses and that the hardworking staff have tried as best they can to accommodate the needs of our schoolchildren. And I realise that you do have to have some flexibility in situations, and a bit of common sense and a bit of goodwill to try and make things work. Now, I would go along with that, and I would certainly go along with many of the drivers of the bus company, who have tried to help out as best they can under these exacting circumstances that we have seen since last September. Granted they are somewhat easier lately, and there is promise of some more buses on the way, but having said that, what we seem to be doing here is moving from a sort of flexible common-sense approach to actually ratifying that we can, at any time, then, have three schoolkids to a seat in a bus. Now, given that a double-decker bus is for 73 adults or something like that - it is usually written in the red writing as a carrying capacity - if we have three schoolkids to a seat, are we ratifying that we are agreeing to 120 kids or so being crammed into a bus all the time? Or should we be having something here that should be saying ‘some of the time’ or ‘in emergency need’ or something of that nature, rather than just a blanket approach which could be saying we agree to it all the time? The way I have read it is that we are agreeing to say that we have exempted schoolkids from the age of 14. Where do we take that: 18, 19, upper sixth-formers? They are as big as adults, if not bigger in some cases. And are we saying then that, under those circumstances, three of that kind of people are considered as just normal adults, two seated, when in fact there are three of them? Now, this situation has concerned me since last September, and I would just like some clarification from the Transport minister of what it is he is actually asking us to do here, because I do not want to end up saying, ‘Yes, okay, I will go along with that’ and find out we have had a blanket coverage that means ‘any time at all’. My understanding is that that is probably what it is saying: it does not give any qualifying criteria to say otherwise. As I say, Mr President, I agree that there have been problems and you have got to have some sort of flexible common-sense approach to try and solve them. And you cannot magic double-deckers out of a hat either; I fully appreciate that. But what I do not want is to find that we have been backed into a corner with this - we approve it and then the situation continues, or next September we have a similar situation - and then for some enlightened parent to check any debates and find out exactly what was said. I think that is unfair, Mr President, and I, for one, would like some clarification on it. The President: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I think the actual explanatory memorandum to members does say that these three children occupying two seats are to be counted as two passengers if they are properly seated, and I think that is a judgement that someone would have to make at the time on the size of the child. Of course, it is also to and from school premises, so if it is a school bus, this could happen, but surely, under any other circumstances, they would be considered as two passengers on two seats and not allowed to carry three people on the two seats. It does not say that in the regulations, however; this is the explanatory memorandum. In the regulations, it says that three passengers who are schoolchildren, being carried to and from school premises and occupying a seat or part of a seat designed for two passengers, shall be counted as two. It does not say that they should be treated properly, and I am not sure who the . . . flagged up by the member, I am not sure who actually decides whether they are seated properly or not, because you cannot regulate a bus by saying ‘two children of 10’, because you might have two big children of 10, but three small children of 10, who would fit in the same area. So, I am not sure. Under these regulations, it does not say that they should be seated properly. So, I think the minister, if he could clarify that? The President: Minister to reply. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. I am aware that the previous department had intended to withdraw this facility, and it is a view that I think all of us would agree with in an ideal world, and I think the member for North Douglas has quite clearly stated the difficulties. It is something, on representation from the Department of Tourism and Leisure, that we spent some time considering, and what we have done is, effectively, continue an unacceptable practice in the interim, between the problems we have at the moment of moving children to and from school and the arrival of the new double-decker buses. It is one where all members have possibly had difficulties where schoolchildren have been left at the side of a road, either on the way to school or from school, because of insufficient capacity. However, I have instructed the department, the RTLC and also the Department of Tourism and Leisure that this situation will be closely monitored, and it is my intention that it will be withdrawn no later than two years from this time. I would hope that it would be before that, when the double-decker buses come in. It is an unsatisfactory situation, but it is also quite clear that the current conduct of children travelling to and from school is unsatisfactory and, in the absence of conductors or anything else, I do believe we are putting some of the drivers of these buses in an invidious position. Mr Henderson: Even worse for them now. Mr Shimmin: It is the situation that is not directly different from what is currently happening. It is an area where I share the member’s concern and it has been one where we have attempted to come forward with a workable system which reflects, in most parts, what is happening now. It is imprecise, other than to say that the new regulation makes it lawful for three schoolchildren, who occupy two seats, to be counted as two passengers, if they are sufficiently slim to be properly seated and that, as with much of the behaviour and conduct on the buses, is one which we arbitrarily leave to the decision-making of the bus driver. It is one where - I take the member’s comments on board - we are working actively with the Department of Tourism and Leisure. I would hope that it would be removed far before two years. The arrival of the double-decker buses is imminent, and therefore we should be looking for changes at that time. At this stage, until those are on board, I think this is the practical way forward. I apologise if that is not to everybody’s satisfaction, but it is one which we are fully aware of. I beg to move, sir. The President: Hon. members, the motion that I put to you is that the Public Passenger Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys: For: Messrs Anderson, Cannan, Quine, Rimington, Gill, Cretney, Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Messrs Downie, Shimmin, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell, Singer, Corkill, Earnshaw, Gelling and the Speaker - 17 Against: Mr Henderson - 1 The Speaker: Mr President, the motion standing at item 19 on the order paper has been passed by the House of Keys with 17 votes for and 1 vote against. In the Council - For: The Lord Bishop, Mr Lowey, Dr Mann, Messrs Kniveton, Radcliffe, Mrs Christian and Mr Crowe - 7 Against: Mr Waft - 1 The President: With 7 votes cast for and 1 against in the Council, hon. members, the motion therefore carries. Foot-and-Mouth Disease Restrictions Recovery Scheme 2002 — Approved Item 20. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Restrictions Recovery Scheme 2002 [GC No 6/02] b e approved. The President: We turn now to item 20 on our order paper, hon. members, and I call now on the Minister for the Treasury to move. Mr Bell: Mr President, at the July 2001 sitting of Tynwald, my hon. colleague, the Tourism minister, presented to this hon. Court the Tourism and Leisure Support Scheme 2001. That scheme provided financial assistance to tourism and leisure businesses in the Isle of Man that suffered severe and lasting damage, sufficient to threaten the future viability of their business as a going concern, as a result of the cancellation of the 2001 TT races or from the restrictions imposed to protect the livestock in the Isle of Man from the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom. However, the tourism and leisure scheme provided financial assistance to tourism and leisure businesses only. Since the implementation of that scheme, the Treasury has become aware of a very small number of businesses that are not related to tourism and leisure and are experiencing serious financial hardship as a result of the restrictions imposed to protect the Island’s livestock from the foot-and-mouth disease. To ensure that all businesses in the Isle of Man that are in serious financial difficulty as a result of the foot-and-mouth disease restrictions receive financial assistance on a comparable basis to those in the tourism and leisure sectors, I present to this hon. Court the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Restrictions Recovery Scheme 2002. The concept and operation of this scheme is similar to the Tourism and Leisure Support Scheme 2001, in that the emphasis is on the applicant to prove that they have suffered severe and lasting damage, sufficient to threaten the future viability of their business as a going concern, as a direct result of the foot-and-mouth disease restrictions imposed. Applicants who have applied for financial assistance under the Tourism and Leisure Support Scheme 2001 are not eligible to apply, unless they have been rejected on the basis of not being related to tourism and leisure. Applications under this scheme will undergo a rigorous review and vetting procedure to, wherever possible, ensure that only genuine claims are paid. Experience under the tourism and leisure scheme has shown that schemes of this nature can, and indeed do, attract claims that are entirely opportunistic. I can assure this Court of the thoroughness of the procedures adopted by officers of the Treasury to identify such opportunistic claims, to ensure that wherever possible, claims for financial assistance are only paid to applicants who satisfy the qualifying criteria. However, I should inform this hon. Court that it is not possible at this stage to quantify how much this scheme will ultimately cost, as the cost will be entirely dependent on the number of valid applications made. In the first instance, the cost of the scheme will be met from the uncommitted balance held on the Tourism and Leisure Assistance Fund 2001, approved at the May 2001 sitting of Tynwald. Hon. members, the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom presented a tremendous threat to the agricultural and tourism industries of the Isle of Man during 2001. This scheme is an additional measure to support Island businesses that have been seriously affected by the foot-and-mouth disease restrictions, and I would urge hon. members to support this further measure. Mr President, I beg to move. Mr Radcliffe: I beg to second, Mr President. The President: Hon. member Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: In the explanatory paper with this order, it says that applicants who applied for financial assistance under the Tourism and Leisure Support Scheme 2001 and the Tourism Accommodation Support Scheme 2001 are not eligible to apply, unless their application was rejected on the basis that they were not a tourism and leisure-related business, but could I ask if all the people have actually been paid out under these schemes? Mr Corkill: The same month. Mrs Hannan: It just concerns me where it says that if you have applied and been turned down you cannot get under this scheme, or if you have been paid out, you mean, you cannot get under this scheme, but there are some people in my constituency who have applied and not yet received any support, and I wondered what the timescale is on actually paying out for some of these schemes, and when does he consider that the paying out under this scheme will actually take place? The President: Hon. member Mr Gelling. Mr Gelling: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I rise, obviously, to support the order, but what I would like just to ask the Minister for the Treasury is if he would actually speak with the other ministers of the Council in respect of the genuine concerns that certainly I have about the farmer in my constituency who was not just affected, he was wiped out. Now, it was all very well that he was paid out under the scheme for the value of the stock at the time, but now, after a nervous breakdown and a long time trying to get himself back on his feet, he finds, of course, that the stock that he has now got to purchase to replace those, because of the outbreak in the United Kingdom, are very, very much more expensive, and he is in a dilemma, I would say, at this time. I do not think this scheme is going to help him, and my plea, actually, at this time, would be to say to the ministers of the Council, ‘Please, when this man actually co-operated in the very early days with the agricultural department and his entire herd were slaughtered, he was told at that time that, when the whole thing was over and the foot-and-mouth hopefully then was cleared, he would be looked after.’ Well, I just feel, Mr President, that we should go back to that man and see what we can do to help him, sir. So, that is really my plea to the minister, if he would take this up with the Council, because I think he does feel very frustrated and, in many ways, very disillusioned with the whole situation, sir. A Member: Hear, hear. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Thank you. Can I say that I support this scheme, and I am pleased to see it come forward; I just think that maybe it does not explain itself well enough to the people who might be affected. All those people who were affected directly by the foot-and-mouth in tourism will understand: they know they were affected and they have hopefully put in their claims and get paid out. But here there is no guidance to the small businesses to say, ‘Well, yes we will consider your claim’ or ‘We will not’, because I suppose every small business - every small retail business, for example - could claim that they were affected because of the lack of people coming to the Island and the lack of tourists during the TT period and other times of the year. Can I ask the minister: are we saying that anybody who thinks their turnover was down because of the problem should be applying? Mr Bell: No. Mr Singer: Or who are the sort of people who would be expected to apply? Because there is no guidance to the small business as to who would be eligible and who would not be eligible. The President: May I call on the minister to reply? Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr President. It certainly, as far as the hon. member for Peel is concerned, was my understanding that now all those individuals, whose applications have been approved, have, in fact, been paid out. I can, though, and will, check to see whether there are still any outstanding payments and ensure that they are processed as quickly as possible. The hon. member for Santon, Mr Gelling, has raised the issue of one individual. I am aware of the situation, and I think the Council of Ministers are very aware of that situation as well. I believe he has already received one payment - am I right? - and what we are looking for is a special exemption, really, as a one-off for this one individual. Mr President, at this particular point it would be probably inappropriate for me to make a commitment to one individual, but I can give the member assurance that I will take it back and ask Council, perhaps, to look at it one more time, to see whether a special provision could be made as a one-off exemption, as this certainly was a very exceptional circumstance, and to see whether, in fact, any rectifying action can be taken. The hon. member for Ramsey has said that there is no guidance to small business. Could anyone affected by the fall-off to the tourist business claim for this? This scheme is a wider scheme, obviously, than the one we had initially, which was related strictly to tourism and leisure, because there may be . . . and at the moment we do not know for sure what categories may come forward to say that they were outside the tourism and leisure industry but that they were materially affected by the impact of the foot-and-mouth restrictions. So, it is impossible at this stage to categorise one industry or another; it would be for the individual to decide whether or not they had been materially affected. But I would say that the overriding criterion - or the only criterion, really - is that the individual would have to prove that they suffered severe and lasting damage, sufficient to threaten the future viability of their business as a going concern. It would not be sufficient for them to come along and say that they had suffered a downturn in turnover; that is not what the schemes are for, and if it was simply that their turnover had fallen, they would not in any way qualify. The future viability of the business as a going concern had to be directly affected by the restrictions which were brought in, in relation to foot-and -mouth, and it would really then be up to the individual to prove to Treasury that that was the case. On that basis, an assessment would be made and, ultimately, the payments made to the individuals. I should just mention though, Mr President, that there is an appeal process in this as well, if they did feel aggrieved, and there would be another stage if they were unhappy. I hope that satisfies the questions, Mr President, and I beg to move. The President: Hon. members, the motion that I put to you is that the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Restrictions Recovery Scheme 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Income Tax (Social Security Benefits) (Exemptions) Order 2002 — Approved Item 21. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Income Tax (Social Security Benefits) (Exemptions) Order 2002 [SD No 83/02] b e approved. The President: We turn, then, to 21, Income Tax Act, and again I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move. Mr Bell: Mr President, under section 48 of the Income Tax Act 1970, certain payments under the social security legislation are not treated as income for any purpose of the Income Tax Acts. The purpose of this order is to add to the existing list of exempted payments. The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act of 1992 (Application) (Amendment) (No. 4) Order 2001 introduced, from 1st January 2002, a new social security benefit called the winter bonus, which replaces the non-taxable winter heating supplement. This order treats the replacement winter bonus as non-taxable. In addition, this order will ensure that the Christmas bonus, previously disregarded for income tax purposes by the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act of 1992, section 1496, but subsequently amended, will remain non-taxable. Mr President, I beg to move that the Income Tax (Social Security Benefits) (Exemptions) Order 2002 be approved. The President: Mr Radcliffe. Mr Radcliffe: I beg to second. The President: Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Simply to support this, Mr President. It is more appropriate that the tax treatment of any benefits is dealt with through Treasury orders rather than through social security orders, and we did amend our legislation at an earlier sitting, in line with this proposal. The President: Do you wish to add to that, minister? Mr Bell: No, there is nothing more I can add, Mr President. The President: In that case, hon. members, I put to you the motion printed at 21 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Betting Duty (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 22. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Betting Duty (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 [SD No 70/02] b e approved. The President: Item 22. The Minister for the Treasury to move. Mr Bell: Mr President, the purpose of these regulations is to insert in the Betting Duty (General) Regulations 2001 a schedule which was omitted from the regulations when they were approved by Tynwald at the December sitting. The schedule contains a form which serves two purposes: firstly, it is the authority to take bets that a licensed bookmaker must possess before taking bets in any period; and secondly, it is the return used by the bookmaker to declare his liability to general betting duty in that period. The form has been redesigned, chiefly to take account of the change to a net stakes receipts - that is, gross profits - basis for betting duty from 1st January 2002. I beg to move, Mr President. The President: Mr Radcliffe. Mr Radcliffe: I beg to second, sir. The President: Hon. members, the motion put to you is printed at 22 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Financial Supervision (Gateways) Order 2002 — Approved Item 23. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Financial Supervision (Gateways) Order 2002 [SD No 58/02] be approved. The President: Item 23. The Minister for the Treasury, Mr Bell. Mr Bell: Mr President, the Financial Supervision Act of 1988 empowers the Treasury to make orders for the purpose of enabling the Financial Supervision Commission to disclose information to public or other authorities in the Island. The establishment of a gateway to enable the Financial Supervision Commission to disclose information to the Isle of Man Gambling Control Commissioners will assist the latter in discharging its functions, especially when seeking to establish the fitness and propriety of a licence applicant. The authorities to which information is to be disclosed must be designated for this purpose by an order which specifies the functions of the relevant authority. Therefore, the Isle of Man Gambling Control Commissioners is now to be designated by such an order. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. member, Mr Crowe. Mr Crowe: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is 23 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Investment Business (Amendment) Order 2002 — Approved Item 24. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Investment Business (Amendment) Order 2002 [SD No 22/02] be approved. The President: We turn the page to 24. Minister for the Treasury. Mr Bell: Mr President, the Investment Business Act of 1991 empowers the Treasury to make orders prescribing activities which shall constitute investment business for the purpose of the Act. The Investment Business Order, which was made under these powers, details which activities constitute investment business. It also lists activities that do not constitute investment business, known as exclusions. The exclusion that relates to advice given in the course of a profession or non-investment business has been interpreted more restrictively by the industry than was anticipated. This is due to the phrase ‘a necessary part of’. The purpose of this exclusion is to exclude from the requirements of the Investment Business Act 1991 those investment business activities which are secondary to the advice given by a professional, such as advocates, solicitors and accountants, as long as this is not separately remunerated. Therefore, it is considered that substituting the wording ‘wholly incidental to’ in place of ‘a necessary part of’ will reflect the intended nature of the exclusion more clearly, and it would also be consistent with the wording of a similar exclusion contained within the equivalent corporate service providers legislation. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Mr Crowe. Mr Crowe: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 24 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Investment Business (Indemnity) (Designated Recognised Regulators) (Revocation) Order 2002 — Approved Item 25. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Investment Business (Indemnity) (Designated Recognised Regulators) (Revocation) Order 2002 [SD No 24/02] be approved. The President: Item 25. Mr Bell, please. Mr Bell: Mr President, this order revokes the Investment Business (Indemnity) (Designated Recognised Regulators) Order of 1996, the indemnity order which designated those recognised regulators who had entered into a mutual assistance agreement with the Financial Supervision Commission to enable them to take advantage of the statutory immunity contained within section 15A sub-clause (2) of the Investment Business Act 1991. The revocation follows the revocation of the regulations which provided that the member firms of the designated recognised regulators which had entered into a regulation agreement with them were recognised persons under section 4 sub-clause (1) of the Investment Business Act of 1991. The Financial Supervision Commission recently consulted the industry on the principle of members of the professions, such as advocates, accountants and solicitors, having to seek a full investment business licence from the commission should they wish to undertake investment business beyond that excluded under the Investment Business Order of 1991. To date, such individuals and firms have been able to be exempted from the requirement to hold a licence, even for investment business undertaken outwith the exclusion, by virtue of their being regulated by the relevant professional bodies. The consultation was undertaken to take account of recent developments within the Isle of Man, such as the report of the Legal Services Commission 2000, and to respond to queries received as a result of changes taking place within the UK’s regulatory r≥gime. Additionally, regulation of investment business activities by one body in the Island may help to ensure that a minimum level of competence exists and that consumers are not disadvantaged. The results of the consultation have shown that this route of direct regulation by the commission is acceptable to the industry, and as a result, the structures and legislation that underpin the current system of recognised regulators require revocation. Henceforth, such member firms will require to be licensed directly under the Investment Business Act 1991 to undertake any investment business which is not excluded by the provisions of the Investment Business Order 1991, and the indemnity order will therefore cease to have effect. The purpose of this order is to remove the indemnity order from the statute book and I beg to move, Mr President. The President: Hon. member Mr Crowe. Mr Crowe: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 25 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Corporate Service Providers (Exemptions) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 26. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Corporate Service Providers (Exemptions) Regulations 2002 [SD No 75/02] b e approved. The President: Item 26: Corporate Service Providers. Again, I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move. Mr Bell: Mr President, the Corporate Service Providers Act of 2002 empowers the Financial Supervision Commission to make regulations for the purpose of adding to and amending the exemptions in part 1 of schedule 2 of the Corporate Service Providers Act 2000 from the requirement under section 2 sub-clause (1) and (2) of that Act to hold a CSP licence when engaging in, by way of business, any regulated activity as defined in part 1 of schedule 1. The Corporate Service Providers (Exemptions) Regulations 2001 which were approved by Tynwald on 24th April 2001, introduced an exemption for a nominee company. However, at the time when those regulations were made the commission was not aware that there might also be companies within the business structure of an unincorporated entity - that is, partnership or sole trader - which provide directorship, secretaryship or shareholding services for clients of the CSP licence applicant. The exemption was therefore restricted to subsidiaries of corporate CSPs. The commission considers that it would be equitable to apply the same principle to the holder of a CSP licence who is a sole trader or a partnership, provided that the CSP controls the company and is responsible for its activities. The regulations therefore provide for the exemption of a nominee company that is wholly beneficially owned by a sole trader CSP or by the partners of a partnership CSP. All the exemptions for officers of companies under paragraph 12 of schedule 2 of the Act were intended to apply to an individual and not to a corporate director or a corporate secretary, which is clear from the context. However, to remove any uncertainty, these regulations substitute the word ‘individual’ for ‘person’ in order to clarify that this paragraph refers to natural, rather than legal, persons. The exemption for an individual who acts as a director of no more than 10 companies should apply only in respect of that individual’s directorships, and it is therefore necessary to amend the wording of the exemption so that the exemption may not be extended to exempt the activity of acting as a secretary of any of these companies also. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Mr Crowe. Mr Crowe: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 26 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Investment Business (Recognised Persons) (Revocations) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 27. The Minister for the Treasury to move - That the Investment Business (Recognised Persons) (Revocations) Regulations 2002 [SD No 23/02] be approved. The President: Item 27. The Minister for the Treasury to move. Mr Bell: Mr President, these regulations revoke three sets of regulations which provided that member firms of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Law Society of England and Wales, and the Isle of Man Law Society, which had entered into a regulation agreement with the institute or societies as appropriate, were recognised persons under section 4 sub-clause (1) of the Investment Business Act 1991. These regulations also revoke two further sets of regulations which cease to have effect by virtue of the above revocations. The Financial Supervision Commission recently consulted the industry on the principal members of the professions, such as advocates, accountants and solicitors, having to seek a full business licence from the commission should they wish to undertake investment business beyond that excluded under the Investment Business Order of 1991. To date, such individuals and firms have been able to be exempted from the requirement to hold a licence, even for investment business undertaken outwith the exclusion, by virtue of their being regulated by their own relevant professional bodies. The consultation was undertaken to take account of recent developments within the Isle of Man, again such as the report of the Legal Services Commission 2000, and to respond to queries received as a result of changes taking place within the UK’s regulatory r≥gime. Additionally, regulation of investment business activities by one body in the Island may help to ensure that a minimal level of competence exists and that consumers are not disadvantaged. The results of the consultation have shown that this route of direct regulation by the commission is acceptable to the industry, and as a result, the structures and legislation that underpin the current system of recognised regulators require revocation. Henceforth, such member firms will require to be licensed under the Investment Business Act 1991 to undertake any investment business which is not excluded by the provisions of the Investment Business Order of 1991. All of the regulations in the schedule have ceased to have effect and the purpose of these regulations is to remove them from the statute book. Mr President, I believe that English translations of these measures have been circulated to members (Laughter) and I beg to move. The President: Hon. member of Council, Mr Crowe. Mr Crowe: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. Mr Quine: Yes, Mr President, I just wish to welcome this order. I gave evidence to the commission on this matter in relation to a particular incident which focused my mind on it, and now that we have at last got these changes made, I think it will be for the good of the community and those that deal with these people. So, I am delighted to see this order coming before us, sir. Mr Bell: Mr President, I am delighted that Mr Quine is delighted. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) (Laughter and interjections). A Member: Hear, hear. Well said. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you is printed at 27 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Guidelines on Management Agreement Payments — Approved Item 28. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to move: That the Guidelines on Management Agreement Payments [GC No 9/02] b e approved. The President: We will turn to 28, and we turn now to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to move. Mr Rimington: Mr President, the submission of these guidelines to Tynwald for approval represents the final stage in putting the infrastructure in place which will permit full implementation of the Wildlife Act 1990 as regards the designation of areas of special scientific interest. I have circulated to members a briefing paper which sets out the technical details of the guidelines and which I think is self-explanatory. I am sure that members will continue to support the concept of designation of areas for special scientific interest, which is intended to recognise the wildlife and conservation value of specific areas of land. I commend the guidelines to the Court for approval. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. member Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir, and in doing so welcome this here today and hope that we see a lot more of them in the future. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 28 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Laxey Glen Mills Milling Wheat Scheme 2002 — Approved Item 29. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to move: That the Laxey Glen Mills Milling Wheat Scheme 2002 [GC No 11/02] be approved. The President: Item 29. Minister for Agriculture, Mr Rimington. Mr Rimington: Mr President, this scheme relates to the supply of the milling wheat to Laxey Glen Mills Limited. It provides authority for the department to lend money to the mill to allow them to purchase directly from Manx growers sufficient wheat to meet their annual requirements for conversion into flour and sale to the local baking industry. Under previous arrangements, the department purchased, through its intervention scheme, all milling wheat offered for sale and meeting specified quality criteria, and would then normally sell it all to the mill. Since 1992, encouragement was provided in the intervention scheme to grow milling wheat through a system of bonus payments based on quality, such payments jointly funded by the department and the mill. By such incentive, the tonnage of milling wheat has grown year on year, from 723 tonnes in 1992 to 3000 tonnes in 2001, making the Island self-sufficient in wheat requiring no input. In the last two harvests, more wheat was grown than the mill required, forcing the department to sell high-grade milling wheat at low feed wheat prices. This Court therefore approved an amendment to the department’s intervention scheme in October 2001, which removed the payment of bonuses on milling wheat after the 2001 harvest, with the department indicating at that time its intention to approach the Court with revised arrangements for milling wheat. It is felt essential to link production directly to Laxey Mills’ needs. In consultation with growers and the mill, it was agreed that this should be achieved by the introduction of contracts between the mill and the grower. For each harvest, the mill will contract directly with growers for the total quantity they require, basing contracted quantities on the average tonnage previously purchased by the department from the grower, with provision made for possible new growers to be awarded contracts. The mill has indicated that, for 2002, it will be issuing contracts for 2,800 tonnes. This scheme would therefore see the department loaning the mill £310,000 to enable them to purchase the wheat, the loan repayable over 12 months before the next harvest. The arrangements before the Court today are the actual scheme, the department’s intended agreement with the mill for advancing the loan, and the contract the mill will use with the growers. In essence, instead of the department purchasing under open-ended arrangements and selling to the mill, this scheme will see the mill purchasing contracted quantities directly from the growers, with the department providing the finance. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. member Mr Karran. Mr Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr President. I have got three questions for the hon. minister for the department, if I may, please. The first is of a practical nature - it is a practice question, really - and this is: why does the department finance this process in this way rather than borrowing from a bank? And I have not been set up for that question. (Laughter) The second question I have is: in the interpretation section of the Bill, I am a little bit confused here, and I would just like an explanation of why these moneys are described as ‘grant’ moneys rather than ‘loan’ moneys, because, to me, grant moneys imply a completely different thing to loan moneys, and this, on the face of it, is very much a loan. The final item is of a technical nature - and perhaps I will get shot down in flames here - but I just wondered if an Act should be cited for this paper - an Act and a suitable section from it - which does not appear on here, and neither does it appear on the next item, which is number 30. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr Anderson. Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. I welcome this scheme. The last scheme was a successful scheme, and I am sure hon. members will be well aware of the benefits, not just to the agricultural industry, but to the wider community. This has been in the pipeline for a considerable length of time being drawn up, but the hon. minister will be aware that it has actually only been in the industry’s hands for a week to 10 days in the present form. There are one or two areas of concern, and all I am looking for this afternoon is consideration from the minister that, if amendments are justified, he will bring them forward within the next twelve months. The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Kniveton. Mr Kniveton: Yes, just one small point, sir, following on from the member for Onchan. Reading from the explanatory note: ‘The department will lend the mill money to enable them to purchase milling wheat direct from the growers, with the mill repaying the department upon the use of the wheat’. Am I, or are we, to assume that there will be no rate of interest to be applied here? If so, what would the rate of interest be, and would that then, of course, affect the profitability of the mill? Thank you. The President: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. Mr Quine: Yes, just two points, sir, if I may. Again, as a matter of principle, I welcome the scheme, but I would ask the minister if he could confirm - could advise me as to - the extent of the consultation which has gone into the order that we now have before us. I would like, for the record, to know precisely how much consultation there has been regarding the scheme which members have been asked to approve today. The second matter I was going to ask him about - and I presume this has been discussed is: there seems to be - unless I have misunderstood this in some way - a degree of unpredictability within this, because people will be signing up to deliver quantities to the mill, as I understand it, but, of course, there is an element of uncertainty as to what is going to be produced in any particular crop or any particular season. There is also provision here for rejection of unsuitable wheat, so just ostensibly there is an element of uncertainty, in quantitative terms, embodied within this scheme, and I would just like him to comment on that, because if that is going to be a very rigid situation, I can see some problems popping up on occasions. The President: I call on the minister to reply. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. I will do my best, which in this case will probably not be good enough, but never mind. Yes, I am sorry. Why borrowing from the department rather than from the bank? A bank - and this, in fact, relates probably to the issue from the hon. member of Council - would, naturally, charge interest, and it is not the position of the department to try and disadvantage the mill by having to levy that interest on the mill. The department is actually making a net gain - a considerable net gain - from doing this, because it is not having to buy wheat which it has no purpose for and then having to sell at a lower price for general feed. So, it is a recognition by, in fact, all parties in the process that this was the right way to go and that we could not have an open-ended scheme where the growers would just keep on producing wheat and the department would just keep on handing them big lumps of money, which was just not going to work. So, this was an advantageous scheme all round, and I am sorry if that might detract from the profits of certain local banks. The wordage of why it is called grant moneys or loan moneys: yes, I can see your point, but it is called grant moneys and I am afraid I am not a legal draftsman and do not know why that is actually done in that sense. And the Act versus the scheme: there is no reference to an Act in there because it is a scheme passed by this hon. Court, and there are many other schemes passed by this hon. Court, in not just this area but other areas as well, which do not relate to an Act in primary legislation. Yes, this is not a secondary legislation scheme in itself, as indeed was the one we have just passed, the foot-and-mouth compensation, and I am sure you would agree that the Treasury would not go off board on these matters (Interjection), even if the Department of Agriculture might. But no, it is done properly, within the correct terms. Yes, I am aware of the issue about the amendments that the hon. member for Glenfaba has addressed. Now, these concerns regarding, as far as I understand, one minor aspect of the scheme only came to my desk on Monday morning, with a request to, in fact, withdraw the scheme. Well, first of all the request was to amend it, and that is not possible within how these schemes are put forward to the Court, so it could not be amended on the floor, and I was not prepared to withdraw the scheme at that point. In fact, having heard - and this is only by telephone conversation and hearsay to myself, so I have nothing written down on paper about these concerns - the actual concerns that have been expressed to me, they actually do not, in my mind, just on that basis alone, seem that they do require amendment. However, I do accept that I have not had anything written down to me on that, and obviously I will take those on board and we will discuss them, and if an amendment is necessary by further consultation with the industry, then an amendment will be necessary. The hon. member for Ayre asked what degree of consultation there has been, possibly picking up on the aspects raised by the member for Glenfaba. As far as I am aware, there has been what I would call our ‘usual’ consultation with the industry, which is quite extensive. What I understand, in relation to the concern that the member is expressing, is that it was spotted by somebody that there was not in the scheme anything written in for succession, i.e. if somebody who is growing this wheat then sells his farm, what happens to the person who then buys the farm? Do they have the rights et cetera, et cetera? There was an amendment made to the scheme in the drafting stage which, in fact, would not be considered contentious - but obviously is now considered contentious - and did not then go out to the industry for them to look at (Interjection) and I was not aware of that issue and this all came to my desk on Monday morning, but I am sure that the consultation did go through its normal process, which is quite extensive, and this has been quite a long time in coming forward. Now, the hon. member was concerned about unpredictability on the actual supply. Yes, there is that; there is always that. There is unpredictability on the actual demand for the flour and then in the tonnage out: the mill will obviously estimate the actual amounts that it will need, and that amount might be more or less, depending on the market; and it will estimate the amount it needs from the growers, and that amount will be more or less, depending on the other things and whether some of that wheat needs to be rejected, although, in practice, it is rare that there is a rejection of a load. The hon. member for Onchan and myself did go round the mill, and we were actually very impressed with the operation there. It is a very small but professional operation, which I think the Isle of Man should be justly proud of. But to overcome that area of unpredictability, the silos which take the grain - there are three silos there and three different grades - are designed so that there is, in fact, a three-month overlap from one harvest to the next. So, obviously, if for some reason there was greater demand or less of a supply, there is flexibility in the system to mop that up, Mr President. Two Members: Hear, hear. The President: Hon. members, the motion I put to you is printed at 29 on the order paper: that the Laxey Glen Mills Milling Wheat Scheme 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Hon. members, I think it is an appropriate time at which to have a break. The Court this evening will reconvene at twenty minutes past five. Thank you, hon. members. The Court adjourned at 4.50 p.m. Loaghtan Ewe Annual Premium Scheme 2002 — Approved Item 30. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to move: That the Loaghtan Ewe Annual Premium Scheme 2002 [GC No 10/02] be approved. The President: Now, suitably refreshed, hon. members, we will see how far we can get now. So, I turn to item 30 on the order paper and again I call on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to move. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. Loaghtans are the native sheep breed on the Island. Their numbers were in serious decline only some 350 breeding ewes in the mid-1980s - and in danger of extinction. Through the efforts of a group of farmers, numbers have increased. This scheme is intended to take loaghtans one stage further, by providing an assured platform of support to allow the breed to establish lucrative market outlets, create a brand name and image, and at the same time continue to add to the Manx countryside through its unique appearance. Loaghtan lambs are unable to attract the support that modern hybrid lambs can under the department’s Sheep (Variable Premium) Scheme, which judges lamb carcasses on their conformation and fat level. Loaghtan lambs take longer to mature - 12 to 15 months on average - are small, have the conformation of primitive sheep, and carry less flesh than a modern lamb. The majority fail to attract premium, judged against commercial grading criteria. They are therefore disadvantaged in terms of support. This scheme provides support, not on the lamb carcass, but on the live ewe. It is therefore similar in concept to the UK’s support for sheep, where payments are made on the ewe. The department has taken that similarity further by linking the payment for loaghtan ewes to that paid under the UK scheme: some £13.63 per ewe this year. Loaghtan owners have demonstrated, on a small scale to date, that demand exists for its distinctive meat and wool. This scheme, with a life of five years, should provide sufficient time for the breed to demonstrate whether it can successfully build a market. A maximum number restriction of 2,500 ewes has been set, with provision to either increase or decrease such number in consultation with the Treasury. Such a decision will be made on how effective loaghtan owners are in developing markets. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. I am delighted to second this order, but in doing so would like to ask a couple of questions of my colleague, the hon. Minister for Agriculture, who has just mentioned in his preamble a ‘platform of support’ for the brand name and image of loaghtan sheep. So, I would be just asking: is this going to be any help in marketing loaghtan lamb? And I suppose, more simply, I could be saying: will this enable me to buy loaghtan lamb in my local butchers? Because I think this is the problem that the loaghtan lamb breeders, who have desperately struggled to preserve this breed, are facing. The meat is not available through our own local outlets, and I would like to ask: if this scheme is not going to help in this way, could the minister tell me when a scheme will be coming forward that will be of help? Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Malew and Santon, Mr Gelling. Mr Gelling: Yes, Mr President. I thought, after waiting so many years, I was going to contribute to a debate to which the hon. member for Onchan would have seconded a motion for sheep; and we all remember his opinion of woolly sheep. (Laughter) However, Mrs Crowe has beaten him to it. I would like to first of all say: yes, I will be supporting this. But my question really follows a little bit that of my colleague behind me, and that is: I know they had the market (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) and the market could not be satisfied because of the relationship between the producer and the marketing arm. And I would like to say to the hon. minister that this was two-pronged: assistance to help them, but if they cannot market through our marketing, what are they marketing through? (Mrs Crowe: Exactly.) Thank you. The President: Hon. member for Peel. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I would just like to follow on from that. I think it is important that, if we are giving assistance, it is assistance in the right way and assistance to the farmers also to market their loaghtan lambs. Loaghtan lamb meat is wonderful meat, if nobody has experienced it. It is possible to get the meat, if you ask your butcher to get a lamb for you, s o it is possible, but it is not easy, and you have to wait until one becomes available. And like the speakers prior to me on this, I would like to wish the department well in their talks with the Isle of Man Agricultural Marketing Society - because that is the arm that we are talking about - to encourage . . . no, not to encourage them, to - A Member: Make them. Mrs Hannan: - make them (Mrs Crowe: Demand.) recognise this meat so that it is not just discarded and so that the public can (Mrs Crowe: Locally.) purchase this and can experience loaghtan meat, because I think it is important. The other area - it is under 14: ‘the offspring of any breed of pure loaghtan ewes comprised in a registered flock on which premium has been paid under the scheme have been presented for certification under the Sheep (Variable Premium) Scheme’. But does that mean that the ewe has to be put to a loaghtan ram? Recause what happens in some places is that they put them to other rams, and so you end up with a cross. I would hope that they would have to be pure- bred loaghtans that actually get the premium and also that they are encouraged to put them to the rams, because it is possible that they would get the premium for the ewes and put them to a ram to be crossed, so that they would get a cross but still pick up this and still also not really produce pure loaghtan lambs. So I would hope that that is something that could actually be addressed. I think they need to be producing the pure loaghtan lamb before they get this. If they are going to cross it with something else, you might as well not bother supporting loaghtan ewes, but I would hope that the minister - and I am sure that the minister will agree with me that he - will be pursuing this (A Member: Hear, hear.) (Laughter and interjections) with the Isle of Man Agricultural Marketing Society. If not, we will be bringing it back before this House, because I feel quite strongly about it. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. Just briefly to rise to support this here today and invite the minister’s comments on what he is going to do about future support schemes. And keep the momentum up; it has been a long time coming, and more of the same, please. The President: Minister to reply. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. First of all, can I very much welcome the support that the loaghtan has received in this House, and I think that is a message which ought to go boldly forward out to those elsewhere outside who do not view the issue in the same way. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) And there have been historic problems in the relationship between the producer and the Fatstock Marketing Association, and this scheme is designed to overcome those problems. I have to say - and I am disappointed to say - that those problems have not yet been fully overcome, because, as you will see in this scheme, one of the conditions is that if a slaughter service is available; well, a slaughter service is available, but at what price? And that is the issue which is very much in the mind of the loaghtan producers at this moment: whether they can actually determine a price with the Fatstock Marketing Association which is reasonable and allows them the opportunity to market their brand. Now, I can assure hon. members that I have written directly to the marketing association, and I believe that, as we - this Court - have given the marketing association a monopoly they should not abuse that monopoly and that they have a responsibility to take all Manx produce and to process it, and I believe that they should be doing the selling of it, the marketing of it. At the moment, the marketing is going to be done through the loaghtan producers. The Fatstock Marketing Association, to be honest, members, should really be, at this moment in time, renamed the Trading Association, because it is not doing any marketing; it is trading in commodities - Mrs Crowe: Absolutely right. Mr Rimington: - and it is not marketing Isle of Man produce. That is a weakness which needs to be addressed, and I can assure hon. members that, in the coming months and years, it will be one of my responsibilities to address that very same issue. The price that they are giving for the slaughter - which will be of interest to agricultural members, who sometimes find it difficult to find out these little facts - is 102 pence per kilogram, which means, for the loaghtans at the moment on an average weight, £17.42 on an average loaghtan size. Comparable prices in the UK, on a three-species abattoir - making a comparison as best you can with something in the UK to the Isle of Man - for such a beast would be about £12, £12.30. (Mrs Crowe: Scandalous.) So, even with the Manx factor - and obviously there is a Manx factor to take on board - one would see somewhere in between those two figures to be a reasonable price. If they cannot get a reasonable price which allows them to market, they only have two other options available, both of which are totally unsatisfactory. One is that they have their own small, dedicated abattoir; that would require a change in legislation, because the Slaughter Act allows for only one abattoir, so that would put the whole thing back some considerable time. And it is, in fact, totally impractical and nonsensical that you should have on the Island two abattoirs when we certainly have one with at least enough capacity. And the other option - and it would be more economic for them at the price that is given - is to export their animals live, have them slaughtered in the UK and bring the carcasses back for them to then do their marketing with, which obviously is a nonsense (A Member: Hear, hear.) and also not one that we could support on animal health grounds and animal welfare grounds. The transporting of animals anywhere is a stressful experience, and taking them across to the UK is generally something we try and avoid - or not encourage - although obviously these things are necessary in the general market from time to time. I would hope that what this scheme should do - in answer to Mrs Crowe - is provide meat for you locally in the butchers. The producers’ organisation already has established a number of outlets for that, and they are very much looking forward to getting the show on the road. In fact, at this point in time, because there was no slaughter last year, there are 1,000 animals in the pipeline for this season. So I am very pleased that members of this House have expressed their support for the loaghtan and hope that there will be those outside who decide that it is now time they changed their attitudes in this regard. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. members, the motion I put to you is printed at 30 on your order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2002 — Approved Item 31. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2002 [SD No 103/02] be approved. The President: We turn, then, to 31, which is Social Security Contributions, and I call on the Minister for Health and Social Security to move. Mrs Christian: Mr President, in moving the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2002, I would say that members have been provided with a memorandum giving them details of the social security benefits from 8th April, as referred to yesterday during the budget debate. The order before us therefore gives legislative effect to the up-rating of the following Isle of Man social security benefits: income support, family income supplement, income-based job seeker’s allowance, disability working allowance, maternity payments, retirement pension premium and child benefit. The proposals for the up-rating of each of these benefits have been explained in the memorandum which has been circulated to hon. members. A separate order will be submitted to up-rate the reciprocal benefits in due course, but, of course, the actual up- rating work will proceed in anticipation of the order being approved, as in line with the approval of this hon. Court in the way these things are managed. I beg to move the item standing in my name, Mr President. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. I am surprised we did not have a little bit more by way of explanation on this, but I will attempt to trawl round some of the paragraphs in the uprating order and see what I can pull out of them. Certainly, a benefit up-rating order is very welcome, and any increase on our benefits is very welcome. Now, having said that - and I alluded to it yesterday when I spoke to the budget debate - some of the up-ratings, however, are not as good as I would have liked to have seen and in fact, are in my opinion - and I used the word yesterday - measly. And I will use it again today: measly. Now, there are one or two exceptions to that, including disability working allowance and some pension element, but by and large we are looking - and I have highlighted it here on my orders - at 10 pence; 40 pence or eight bob; we are looking 25 pence - five bob; 40 pence; 40 pence; 20 pence; 30 pence. These are the up-rating orders. Now, to me, they are annual inflationary increases and not much more. I also notice that the winter heating supplement is not set to move: if I have read this correctly, it is staying at £150, because the RPI is reckoned not to have moved. Mrs Christian: In fact, it dropped. Mr Henderson: RPI has dropped, yes. So, having said that, it is funny that the likes of Manx Gas have stayed continually as one of the highest movers in our index for heating, and the last time I bought a bag of coal, which was about 12 months ago - Mrs Crowe: Not very green. Mr Henderson: - the ordinary coal was about £9. And just for the hon. member behind me who said ‘very green’: if you want smokeless fuel, you could be looking at around £14 or £15 a bag. (Interjections) So, having said that, if you are a pensioner on minimum benefits and so on, it becomes very difficult, and I would have liked to have seen a movement in the winter heating premium - or heating allowance, as I know it and as all my constituents know it - and I think it is a shame that we could not have done that, because it would have been a nice touch. Also, I notice that the lone parent transitional point is actually on the slide. I know we were informed about that, and I was one of the ones who hotly debated that we should not be looking to knock this out of our benefits system, and fair enough, it was agreed that there would be a transitional period for this and no new lone parents would be allowed to claim and so on. Having said that, I do not think that was a good move on behalf of the government, and I am sorry that it has gone and I am sorry to see it dropping in these orders. So, with those few comments, Mr President, I think we could have done much better, but I obviously welcome the slight increase that we do have. The President: Hon. member for Ayre. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to refer to . . . well, we can either take page 12 of the order itself, or perhaps more relevant are pages 9 and 10 of the accompanying memorandum, and if you will persevere with me, I would just like to read what is here, because I think we need to read it to understand what is being put forward. And I quote - and I am relating to housing costs - ‘The present private sector limits are as follows: single claimant or couple without children, £70; with one dependent child, £75; with two dependent children, £80; with three or more dependent children, £85. To inform the up-rating process for 2002, a survey was undertaken by the department of the private rented accommodation caseload. The total number of pensioner cases was 91, and for under pension age, 175. Of pensioners, 82 per cent had housing costs within the maximum for single people or couples without children of £70. A further five per cent had costs of £5 or less over the maximum, and a further five per cent had costs within £10 of the maximum. A similar picture was identified for single people and couples without children, under pension age, with 79 per cent with housing costs within maxima. A further 4 per cent had costs £5 or less over the maximum, and a further 6 per cent had costs within £10 of the maximum.’ And I will leave the next paragraph and go on now to the next bit. ‘There have been significant rises in these maxima in recent years, and it would appear at this time that the difficult balance between meeting costs and fuelling housing inflation is about right for single people and childless couples. The bigger increases from April 2002 in housing costs are therefore loaded towards families. The single rate is increased by all-item Manx retail price of 1.2 per cent,’ and this is for rents, mind you, ‘1.2 per cent. The rate for a one-child family is increased by five per cent, and the rates for two or more children families is increased by £5.’ Now, this gives us the following rates and what this amounts to is: at the moment, a single claimant or couple without children are getting £70; it is now proposed we are going to give them 85 pence more. With one dependent child, £75; now we are going to give them £78.75, £3.75 more. Now, is that indicative of the movement in the rent levels outside? With two dependent children, it is presently £80 and is going to go up to £85, and with three or more dependent children, it is presently £85, going up to £90. I want to come back to how these figures have been arrived at, but I think I would just ask members to reflect for themselves and ask yourself whether you believe, in the light of your dialogue with your constituents, whether in terms of private sector rents. . . and we can take any one example you wish, but take three or more dependent children, take a couple with three children: is it realistic that they can go out there now and acquire accommodation at £90? Now, how has this been arrived at? Well, it would appear it has been arrived at in this way: it says - and I go back to this - ‘To inform the up-rating process for 2002, a survey was undertaken by the department of the private rented accommodation caseload.’ So, they have gone back to those people who are presently in receipt of these allowances. ‘The total number of pensioner cases was 91, and for those under pension age was 175’, so they have gone, apparently, to those who are already accommodated and said, ‘What are you now paying for rent?’ and ‘What movement has there been in their rent?’ Apart from the actual number, which is inconsequential as a matter of methodology, this, I would suggest to you, is not indicative anyway of what is available in the marketplace if you walk into an estate agent now and say, ‘What have you got on your books that you can offer me and my family of three children at £90?’ Now, that is how I read that, and I am sure we will be offered an explanation by the minister, but I think, as far as I am concerned, I will be perfectly happy at this juncture if the public can be made aware that that is the price; that is what we are saying accommodation is available for outside, at this time, in the private sector. So, we are saying £70.85 without children, £78.75 with one dependent child, £85 with two dependent children, and a couple with three or more, £90. Now, I invite you to go outside, walk down to the first estate agent and see what is on offer at those prices. The President: Hon. Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I just really wanted to raise an issue that I have had raised with me recently in relation to the disabled working allowance, which is a concern that somebody who is already on it has. In fact, there has been a change which they have recently been notified of, where there has been some change in the rules - and I looked at this and could not see it as that, because this is the up-rating - and it has meant a change is, if I use the term ‘inflicted’ on them that does not recognise their circumstances. And they have no protection, although they have been on the disabled working allowance for a number of years now, and they do not have the support under the new scheme, I understand, that was available under the older scheme. I accept the minister may not have that information, and I am not too clear, except to say that whatever has been introduced has not included a protection for recipients who were already in receipt of disabled work allowance. Therefore, often you get a change, but there is protection for those already on it, and this change apparently is going to have quite a dramatic effect - or potentially is - on people who are encouraged to work and who have a disability because the work is seen as a therapy for them. The new information, which I understand only came out by letter from the department in the last couple of weeks, is causing concern, and I would just really raise that with the minister, and if she cannot respond today, it would be helpful if maybe she could respond, or if she wants more details I will try and get them for her. The President: Hon. member of Council, Mr Waft. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. Just on these issues, I wonder if the minister might clarify something for me. I have had dealings with a few people recently with regard to the 50 pence in the pound for everything over £85 for those who want to receive incapacity benefit; in other words, if they go off sick later in life, but below retirement age. I have had it said to me today that if you are on disability living allowance and receiving the higher rate, then the 50 pence in the pound deduction from your incapacity benefit is not applicable. This was found out when the chap appealed against the decision. Is the minister in a position to clarify that position? Thank you, Mr President. The President: Minister to reply. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. With regard to the queries by hon. members, I think that, in terms of the hon. member Mr Henderson’s comments, he is expressing his opinion about the up-rating. Up-rating is generally about inflationary increases. I did highlight yesterday the areas where we have applied increases in excess of the index which is applicable to social security benefits, and he has again commented on what he believes to be inappropriate in respect of lone parents. Those are matters that have been discussed by the Court and settled at an earlier time, (Mr Henderson interjecting) so I do not intend to go over those again. With regard to the comment from the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, on housing costs, the way in which we have reached the figures is quite clearly explained in the memorandum. I am taking the point that he is making, that he believes that people are not able to obtain properties at those rents. All I can say is that I, personally, was rather surprised by what our survey revealed, in that they are obtaining, and have, properties at these rental levels. Mr Quine: They are sitting tenants. Mrs Christian: Indeed, but even sitting tenants get rent increases from time to time. However, it is a matter for the Court to express its view on, and the hon. member has raised that issue. If it is of any help, I will undertake to, after a period of time, review again the sort of levels of rent that claimants for income support are having to pay. The hon. Mr Speaker has asked about a situation in relation to disability working allowance. I am afraid that, without more detail, I am not in a position to answer his query at this time; I do not know what the changes are that he refers to. I am not conscious of any recent changes, but if he could provide me with a little more detail, I would be happy to try and explore what the difficulty might be. Also, in relation to Mr Waft’s question, which is very specifically related to the 50 pence in the pound offset on occupational pensions and so on: again, that is rather a specific question in relation to DLA higher rate payments, and I am not in a position, I regret, Mr President, to respond to that in detail at this time but will undertake to look into it if he could let me have more detail on the particular case. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you therefore is at 31 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs Anderson, Rodan, Quayle, Rimington, Gill, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Houghton, Henderson, Cretney, Braidwood, Downie, Shimmin, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell, Corkill, Earnshaw, Gelling and the Speaker - 18 Against: Messrs Quine, Duggan, Mrs Cannell, Mr Singer - 4 The Speaker: Mr President, the motion standing at item 31 on the order paper has been passed by the House of Keys, with 18 votes for and 4 votes against. In the Council - For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs Lowey, Waft, Kniveton, Radcliffe, Mrs Christian and Mr Crowe - 7 Against: Dr Mann - 1 The President: With 7 for and 1 against in the Council, hon. members, the motion therefore carries. Now, hon. members, it appears that, following our refreshments, the temperature must be a bit warm in the Court, and I will be happy if members divest themselves of their jackets. A Member: Hear, hear. (Laughter) Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 32. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 [SD No 104/02] be approved. The President: We turn to item 32 and I call on the Minister for Health and Social Security to move. Mrs Christian: Mr President, these regulations make a number of amendments to the Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) Regulations and, in the main, provide clarification of existing provisions, including, inter alia, recognition of the minimum wage legislation and disregard of the ex gratia payment of £10,000 to those imprisoned or interned by the Japanese in the Second World War for the purpose of income support calculations. I beg to move, Mr President. The President: Hon. member Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Mr President, I beg to second. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 32. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Social Security Legislation (Application) Order 2002 — Approved Item 33. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Social Security Legislation (Application) Order 2002 [SD No 105/02] be approved. The President: Item 33. Minister for Health and Social Security. Mrs Christian: Mr President, this order makes a number of amendments to the regulations governing jobseeker’s allowance. Amendments are made, for example, to clarify the amount of loan interest to be included in the calculation of weekly amounts of income-based jobseeker’s allowance as a consequence of the introduction of the statutory minimum wage. Full details have been enclosed in the memorandum, which members have had an opportunity, I trust, to read. It also increases the amount of disregard on weekly earnings under the JSA rules, which is more straightforward and generous than the previous figure. I beg to move. The President: Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Mr President, I beg to second. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 33. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 34. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 [SD No 106/02] be approved. The President: We will turn to 34. Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Mr President, these regulations make a number of amendments to the regulations governing the payment of maternity and funeral payments to persons in receipt of income-related benefits. In particular, these regulations increase the capital limit of £1,000 to £10,000. This is the amount that a person might possess before any maternity or funeral payment to which they might be entitled is reduced. It is a significant increase in the capital holding that they can have, Mr President. I beg to move. The President: Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 34. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Family Income Supplement (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 35. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Family Income Supplement (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 [SD No 107/02] be approved. The President: Item 35. Minister, Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Mr President, these regulations make a number of minor, but not insignificant, amendments to the law governing the payment of family income supplement. For example, the minimum number of hours a person must work in any week to gain an additional prescribed amount to their weekly amount of family income supplement is reduced from 30 to 24 hours. The full details of the provision have been circulated. There is also a requirement in the regulations that changes of domestic circumstances must be notified to the department when that change occurs. This is partly because we now make payments over a much extended period as far as family income supplement is concerned: after an initial claim, it may be paid for up to 26 weeks. It used to be a much shorter period of 12 weeks, and therefore it is appropriate that, when changes do occur during that 26-week period, we ought to be notified of them. I beg to move. The President: Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is printed at 35. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Jobseeker’s Enhanced Allowance Scheme 2002 — Approved Item 36. The Minister of Health and Social Security to move: That the Jobseeker’s Enhanced Allowance Scheme 2002 [GC No 08/02] be approved. The President: We turn, then, to 36. Mrs Christian: Mr President, this scheme replaces the Jobseeker’s Enhanced Scheme 1996 and is part of a consolidation exercise. Two new provisions are also incorporated in the new scheme to standardise the period of payment of jobseeker’s enhanced allowance and contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance at 26 weeks. This is a reduction in the time it is payable to 26 weeks, to be the same as the basic jobseeker’s allowance payment. It also reduces the amount of paperwork required to claim jobseeker’s enhanced allowance, in that you can make one claim instead of two. I beg to move, Mr President. Mr Earnshaw: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr President. I rise to oppose this order, because it is a simple cut. It is dropping down the time allowed to make the claim, and I do not think it is right and I do not think it is necessary, and there is no need for it in this financial climate, the same as we had to put up with with the housing costs just before, Mr President. The President: Hon. member Mr Houghton. Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. I have to concur with what my hon. colleague has said here: I do not see the point of it at all. Why should it be done, and may I further ask that the hon. minister withdraw this particular motion, sir? Mr Henderson: Hear, hear. The President: Minister to reply. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. It would have been surprising, perhaps, if there had not been a comment on this resolution. In a sense, yes, it is a cut. What we have to bear in mind is that there are hardly any claimants for these benefits (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) now (Interjections) and indeed, if there - Mr Houghton: Wait till there are some! Mrs Christian: Well, Mr President, the history of this is set out in the memorandum, and if we want to go through it, I certainly will. Mrs Crowe: Yes, do. Mrs Christian: The enhanced unemployment benefit scheme was introduced many years ago because the Isle of Man did not have redundancy payment legislation. It was to compensate people who were made redundant for that purpose. The Isle of Man moved on and introduced redundancy payments, but it did not, as a balancing effect, remove enhanced jobseeker’s allowance. And so we had a situation where what had been introduced to substitute for redundancy payments was sitting alongside those redundancy payments. Originally, it was payable for 13 weeks. When jobseeker’s allowance was introduced, that period was extended to 52, as a quid pro quo for moving to jobseeker’s. It seems not unreasonable, given that we do have redundancy payment legislation now, that we have introduced a consolidation measure to make these two payments parallel at 26 weeks, so that you get your jobseeker’s allowance and your enhanced jobseeker’s allowance for 26 weeks. This would not affect anybody on a low income, because if they are on a low income and lose their enhanced jobseeker’s allowance, they can have that topped up by income-based jobseeker’s allowance, which ensures that their position is not detrimentally affected. I do not think that this is an unreasonable step to take, given, over the years, the decline in claims under this particular scheme, and I think this is an appropriate time to deal with the matter. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you is printed at 36: that the Jobseeker’s Enhanced Allowance Scheme 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs Anderson, Rodan, Quayle, Rimington, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Cretney, Braidwood, Downie, Shimmin, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell and Earnshaw - 12 Against: Messrs Quine, Gill, Houghton, Henderson, Duggan, Mrs Cannell, Mr Singer and the Speaker - 8 The Speaker: Mr President, item 36 on the order paper is passed by the House of Keys, with 12 votes for and 8 votes against. In the Council - For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs Kniveton, Radcliffe, Mrs Christian, Mr Crowe - 5 Against: Waft, Dr Mann - 2 The President: With 5 for and 2 against in the Council, hon. members, the motion therefore carries. Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 2) Order 2002 — Approved Item 37. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move: That the Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 2) Order 2002 [SD No 108/02] b e approved. The President: Hon. members, we will now turn to item 37 on our order paper, and again I will call on the Minister for Health and Social Security, Mrs Christian, to move. Mrs Christian: Mr President, this order amends the provisions within the disability working allowance regulations to allow for the reduction in the required hours that a person has to work in order to obtain additional applicable amount from 30 to 24 hours. This is parallel with the changes that I have just mentioned in respect of family income supplement. This will enable people to have a top-up to their disability working allowance by working this reduced number of hours. I beg to move, Mr President. The President: Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve my remarks. The President: The motion, hon. members, is at 37 on your order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Employment of Security Staff (On-Licensed Premises) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 38. The Minister for Home Affairs to move: That the Employment of Security Staff (On-Licensed Premises) Regulations 2002 [SD No 84/02] be approved. The President: We turn, then, to item 38, and I call on the Minister for Home Affairs to move. Mr Braidwood. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. The regulations before this Court will, if approved, provide for a register of persons who may be employed as a guard or a door-keeper at licensed premises, and provide for applications for, and for renewal of, registration and the duration and cancellation of registration. The Licensing Act 1995 gives the licensing court the power to impose an additional condition on on-licensed premises: licensed premises are required to have a security door staff. This will be applied, for example, to those premises where the court, on advice from the police, considers security staff to be necessary. Before July 2001, a non-statutory register was kept by the licensing bench. Because the matter of licensing security staff was being undertake on an informal basis, it was not possible to devise a complete system which would cover appeals. The regulations will move registration onto a legal footing and will give anyone dissatisfied with the decision the right of appeal to the High Bailiff. There is an application fee of £15 for a period of three years, after which there is a renewal fee of £15 for another three years. Those who are already registered on the non-statutory register, of which there are 211, have already paid their £15 fee to the licensing court. They will be required to apply for a registration on the date the new system comes into effect; however, they will only be charged a £15 renewal fee once their original three-year registration has expired. It is necessary to reregister everyone in this way to allow them to be legally employed as a door-keeper. It will also give them the same rights as any new applicant would have under the new scheme. Mr President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member Mr Houghton. Mr Houghton: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I am quite in support of this particular motion, sir, but could the hon. minister explain what the difference is between these measures here and the ones that have been previously passed by this hon. Court? The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I just really wish to welcome these new regulations and say how we were looking to try to introduce something - or encouraging the introduction - many years ago. In fact, I can remember asking in this hon. Court the then Chairman of the Department of Home Affairs, who is still a member of this hon. Court, whether or not we could introduce regulations to control security staff on licensed premises, and at that time the view was ‘No, we could not’, because there was really no way to properly undertake that. And I am pleased that here we are, some 15 - well, more years than that - ahead and now we have such a situation in being. I accept, of course, that we have had a voluntary situation, but this really will put it on a proper footing, and I believe anybody acting in this sort of way on licensed premises should be properly licensed and properly controlled (Two Members: Hear, hear.), because they are in a position where they can abuse their positions, and have done in the past. Hopefully this will make the whole thing more professional, and I welcome these new regulations. The President: Hon. member for West Douglas, Mr Shimmin. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. I am delighted to be here today as well, as the person who was tasked with - as one of my first political r™les - trying to introduce a voluntary scheme. I was very encouraged by the support that I had at that time from the people within the trade. However, there was a feeling that they were being forced down a route. They co-operated well, and I think that the manner in which it was conducted on their behalf meant that the voluntary scheme came in fairly painlessly, and I hope that we have witnessed some improvements in the standards and the performance of the people supervising these establishments. I think today it is appropriate that we actually take a step further forward for everybody’s sake. It puts it onto a legal footing, there is no longer a fear as to the motives and the people involved will see the benefits, and I commend the department for their actions. Mr Houghton: Hear, hear. The President: I call on Mr Braidwood to reply. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. In reply to Mr Houghton - and I think it has been mentioned already by the Speaker - this will put it on a statutory footing - Mr Houghton: Ah, thank you. Mr Braidwood: - where there will be an appeals procedure for anyone who is turned down to be a security guard. And I also thank Mr Shimmin for his support. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you is printed at 38 on your order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Drinking in Public Places (Designated Places) (Ramsey) Order 2002 — Approved Item 39. The Minister for Home Affairs to move: That the Drinking in Public Places (Designated Places) (Ramsey) Order 2002. [SD No 97/02] be approved. The President: Item 39. Again I ask the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Braidwood, to move. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. This order is made under powers provided under section 76 of the Licensing Act 1995. It designates areas in the town of Ramsey as being places where drinking liquor in public will be an offence once the individual concerned has been requested by a police officer not to do so. The request for this area to be designated has come from Ramsey Commissioners, working with the police to address a problem that is causing increasing concern within the town. I would stress that it is only the area designated within the order that is open to the public and excludes any buildings within the curtilage of any on- licensed premises or club premises. I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The President: Hon. member Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Eaghtyrane, I beg to move and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. I give this a limited welcome, as the scheme is basically limited. I personally feel that we should be looking at all areas of a town (A Member: Hear, hear.) where people should be subject to a police warning. If the police tell them not to drink in that area, they should not drink in that area. Because it is quite clear, and we have said this before many times: all this tends to do is to push people from one area to another area where the police do not have those powers. And when we look at this map here, in fact, the main shopping street, Parliament Street, is not included, and that is an area where surely the police should have the powers to stop people drinking alcohol in public if they so desire. I really think, as I say, that whilst I give this a limited welcome, we should be looking further than this in order to give them powers to stop people drinking in all areas of a town if the police think so. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr President. Really, just following on from that particular theme, I would remind members that there was a proposal put forward in the Licensing Act, which went through some time ago, that this power could, in fact, embrace the whole of the Island, but at the time the House of Keys decided in its wisdom not to do that, and therefore we are left with this piecemeal arrangement. Certainly, the Department of Home Affairs at the time was in favour of a wider scheme, but recognise, I think, that the proposals now mean that there is always the problem, not only in Ramsey but in other parts of the Island, that as problem individuals are moved from one area, they will simply move on to another which is not designated. Really, until an all-embracing measure is brought in to encompass the whole of the Island, you are always going to be in difficulties and the police will be left in a position of moving people on from one area to another. But in terms of the area designated under the present legislation, it is entirely down to the local authorities to decide what area in their particular town or district they wish to have included in the order. I do not believe - if I remember correctly - that the Department of Home Affairs has the ability to override the wishes of a local authority in these matters, so I think the hon. minister’s are tied. Certainly, as far as Ramsey is concerned, I welcome the moves that are taken, but it should be remembered that this measure that comes in is for adults and that the police already have powers to remove alcohol and, in fact, chase up people who are drinking under-age in these areas, and I believe there is some confusion at times as to what the powers actually extend to. The problem in Ramsey, as is the problem of most other towns on the Island, is with under-age drinking, and the police do have adequate powers at the moment to deal with this. They do not need these designated areas to actually tackle the problem; the powers already exist. The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I really get to my feet after the comments of the last speaker, the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, who indicated the promotion, when he was Minister of Home Affairs, to try - and this came from the police, I understand - to have an all- Island blanket on this. We must not forget that the Isle of Man is still a tourist area (A Member: Hear, hear.) and relies very much on a lot of functions that are actually out in our streets, where people actually enjoy alcohol and do not cause any problem whatsoever. (A Member: Hear, hear.) The point I have a concern about is that, in fact, the police do not utilise the powers they already have in dealing with people who are drinking and causing a public nuisance. They do not need these designated areas. The reality is that they do not need them. What it does is that it makes it slightly easier for them, but at the end of the day - and the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, mentioned under-age drinkers - I was at a meeting with residents who were having a problem, and the issue of under-age drinking came up, and in the end - and there was a senior police officer there - I had to say, ‘Well, can you not accept, or can you confirm, that you have powers already to deal with under-age drinking? Because you can confiscate their drink and take it from them’. And reluctantly he said, ‘Yes’. I have to say that there tends to be a reluctance sometimes to deal with issues when the laws already exist - Mrs Crowe: That is true. The Speaker: - and I have always been one who has been very skeptical of these zones. They really are not a reality in dealing with problems and are not necessarily necessary. In fact, what was promoted by the police at the time were quite draconian powers that gave them the right to tell you to stop drinking, full stop, and I do not believe that is what the people of the Isle of Man want. I certainly do not support it. There are many good occasions - TT week, the Southern 100 - where people enjoy themselves in public places, on the highway, and in fact there is no problem. And when there is a problem, the police have the powers to deal with it. I am only responding really to the point that was made by the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, because I would warn the House against passing legislation which gave a blanket right across the Island, because you will not know its effect until it comes into effect. The President: Hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Duggan. Mr Duggan: Thank you, Mr President. I concur with the Speaker, actually, because you can be too restrictive. We are a holiday Island. For instance, were, on Douglas quayside, is the harm, on a hot day, (A Member: Absolutely.) in people out having a nice drink on the quay? (Interjection) You can be far too restrictive. As the ex-minister, Mr Bell, said, it is the local authorities that designate these areas, but I have got a view very similar to the Speaker’s: it would be too restrictive. The President: Hon. member for Peel. Mrs Hannan: Yes. My understanding is that it does not matter where young people are drinking; the police can take alcohol from them and deal with it in that way. And if that is the case, Eaghtyrane, and they are not using it, I wonder why we do have to produce these maps if it is the feeling that all areas should not be restricted, but that the police should have these powers in all areas, where people can drink, but if they are asked to stop drinking in designated places, then people do. And it is not really draconian. Surely the police would have to prove that they were causing a problem? I just wonder why we are passing this down to local authorities to suggest to them areas which . . . I mean these are the playing-fields here, and there are the other playing-fields, the Coronation Park and all, which are in this. Surely these are areas where children are; surely we would not want adults drinking there. (Interjection) No, but I am just saying, Eaghtyrane, that if those are the powers that the police want and they are not going to abuse those powers, but they want to say to people who are causing an affray somewhere because of their drinking, ‘Will you put that bottle’ - or whatever - ‘down; will you stop drinking; will you move away from this area?’, then they are not moving from one area into another area outside the area and causing problems. Saying that, I really feel than an awful lot of work needs to be done with the police and with people who are involved in alcohol. I spoke this morning about our alcohol culture - and I do believe that we have this alcohol culture - and I do believe that, in lots of areas, drinking in the streets is a lot of that culture. I do think that the police should be trained to deal with people who are under the influence and who are difficult to deal with, so that they do not get into a situation where they end up arresting them for whatever reason. I do hope that action will be taken to train the police in ways to approach people under the influence of alcohol and try to get them to act in a reasonable way. Not an easy thing to do, I would admit, but I think it is an area which we could recognise, maybe having fewer people in court and maybe a bit more respect for the police when they take action against people who are involved in alcohol. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: I call on the minister to reply to the debate. Mr Braidwood, please. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. I said in my notes when I started that - and I would stress - it is only the area designated within the order that is open to the public and excludes any buildings within the curtilage of any on-licensed premises or club premises. Now, this is not intended to prevent members of the public having a drink outside a public house on a sunny day, but it is to provide the police with the power to stop troublemakers continuing to carry alcohol from pub to pub or making a nuisance of themselves, and this is after the individual has been warned by the policeman. Now, Mr Singer’s question has been answered by his colleague for Ramsey, Mr Bell. The areas are requested by the local authority, and that is then put to the department, and it is the department who then puts it to this hon. Court. From what I can gather from information, yes, the department tried to get a blanket cover because they were saying a lot of the designated areas - large areas in Douglas and in Port Erin. . . and a blanket power would then give them the power to say, ‘Yes, you stop drinking’, but that was refused, because what the police were looking for, I think, is to stop people moving from a designated area to one which was not designated so that they could keep on drinking. So, I do not think it is too restrictive; there are areas in the UK such as Glasgow, which is a non-alcohol area where the police can tell an individual walking around in the city of Glasgow to stop drinking. And yes, Mrs Hannan: the police have powers to confiscate alcohol from young persons. Now, you also mentioned about the police being trained in dealing with people under the influence of alcohol. I have been out with the police, and I have to say I was extremely pleased with the way that they dealt with the people, when I was out until twenty past three with them, dealing with individuals who were concerned with drink. I thought they dealt with it very well indeed. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. members, the motion I put to you is that the Drinking in Public Places (Designated Places) (Ramsey) Order 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Waste Management Board Order 2002 — Approved Item 40. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move: That the Waste Management Board Order 2002 [SD No 38/02] be approved. The President: Item 40, then. Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move. Mrs Crowe. Mrs Crowe: Mr President, this order revokes and replaces the Waste Management Board Order 2001, which was approved by Tynwald at the October 2001 sitting. The 2001 order established a Waste Management Board, with effect from 1st April 2002, and transferred to it the waste disposal functions of the Department of Local Government and the Environment. The functions of the Department of Transport in relation to the provision of slaughterhouses and knackers’ yards were also included. Subsequent to the approval by Tynwald of the original order in October 2001, it became apparent that some amendments would be required. The first amendment identified concerned the implementation date for the transfer of functions regarding slaughterhouses and knackers’ yards. Following representation from the Department of Transport, my department concluded that the implementation date for the transfer of these functions should be postponed from April 2002 until April 2004. This has been agreed by the Governor-in-Council, as it will allow the Department of Transport to continue the operation of the rendering plant at East Baldwin until it can be decommissioned in 2004. The second amendment concerned the transfer of responsibility, from my department to the board, of the functions regarding the disposal of abandoned vehicles. This is a waste management issue, and its transfer was agreed following approval of necessary staffing resources by the Civil Service Commission. The final amendment concerned the membership of the board. Following a request by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Governor-in-Council has agreed that the membership of the board should be increased to a chairman and four other members; the 2001 order provided only for a chairman and two other members. The suggestion that the members of the board should be increased was an issue that was raised by hon. members during last October’s debate on the original order in this Court. Although initially consideration was given to drafting an amendment order, it was subsequently agreed that it would be preferable for the 2001 order to be replaced by the 2002 order. The draft 2002 order was considered by the Council of Ministers on 24th January 2002, and it was then agreed that the date for bringing into effect the establishment of the new board should be postponed from April 1st 2002 until April 1st 2003. This new operative date will still be well in advance of the commissioning period for the energy-from-waste plant, and it honours the commitment made by government, at various times, that the operational responsibility for waste operations should be transferred away from my department, leaving the department to fully concentrate on its regulatory r™le. Hon. members will note, however, that the approval of the new 2002 order cannot be deferred, since without it the Waste Management Order 2001 will come into force in April 2002. It is for this reason that it is essential that article 4 (2) of the new order comes into force before that date. In other words, the revocation of the original 2001 order needs to be effected before April 2002. An explanatory memorandum, which provided the background information relating to both the orders, has been previously circulated to the hon. members, and I do hope that this shortened version is explained by the more detailed explanatory memorandum. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Mrs Hannan, hon. member for Peel. Mrs Hannan: Yes. Just on the explanatory memorandum, under ‘Personnel Implications’, the last sentence, really, 3: management and enhancement of recovery, reuse and recycling initiatives and the operation of landfill sites’. I wonder: is this a rewriting of the policy? Because my understanding of the policy - and maybe it has changed since I looked at it last - is to reduce, reuse and recycle. Now, this relates to recovery, reuse and recycling, and I wonder where the Department of Local Government and the Environment, in setting up this Waste Management Board, have finally come to the conclusions that they are doing nothing about reducing waste and therefore they give that up. I would have to say, Eaghtyrane, that I will continue to support at least a suggestion by the department that they continue to look at reducing waste; because we are going to have a plant which burns everything, it does not mean that we should produce more and more waste. One of the problems at the moment is increasing amounts of plastic - plastic bags, plastic bottles and all of these sorts of issues - that can actually be recycled. What we should be doing is putting a tax on these things, and we should be sending them back again to the UK for recycling; we should not be burying them in a hole until you can burn them in the incinerator. You burn them in an incinerator and you produce dioxins. We do not want dioxins, even if we can treat them; the dioxins are going to end up all over Douglas. Now, that is not something that I should necessarily - well, I could - be concerned about, because the wind might be in that direction and it gets over to us. Mr Henderson: Go west. Mrs Hannan: We do not want any more dioxins. The dioxins are going to land on Douglas; they are going to land on farmland round about. We do not want them. I know the department is going to put a lot of work in to try and not produce them in the first place, but let us not put them in there in the first place. So, let us carry on with trying to reduce. Now, I hope that the minister will take this back to the department, just the little sentence - I am quite happy to support it, but just that little sentence, and let us get some action on reducing, because that has been the policy of that department and Tynwald for - I do not know - the last 10 years, and I would hope that members of this hon. Court could also support me in this action of trying to reduce the amount of waste, especially the plastic stuff. Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I am very concerned about this order because. . . I mean, I am glad to see that they have seen some sense in increasing the numbers on the board - it is something that I have always been keen on and I was glad to see it being done on other authorities - but what does disappoint me about it is the fact that it is going to be appointed by the Council of Ministers and approved by this hon. Court. We hear everybody shout about local government reform and how we must get the local government to start taking up its responsibilities, and what I would have preferred to have seen is some way of picking the four members through some sort of electoral college, where the different local authorities could put some sort of representation - Mrs Hannan: Oh no, no. Mr Karran: - on the board. At the moment, refuse is a responsibility of local government, and we are taking it off them, and I think what we have got to try and do is be honest: we are going to be charging rates for this facility. I think that is not in question now; the rates will be starting to be levied as far as waste management is concerned, just like there will almost certainly be rates levied for IRIS when it happens. But at the end of the day, the situation is that I do feel that that is where I am totally disappointed with this order: we have taken the easy option out, we want local government to take responsibility and we will be levying a rate for this service in the future unless there has been a rapid change in the secret agenda as far as rates are concerned. The situation is that we should accept the fact . . . I see some smiling around here, but I know that we were offered IRIS so we would start levying a fee for the Water Authority, so I do think some people around here have amnesia when it comes to that, and I do feel that that is the one thing that does disappoint me with this order. I do feel that we should have got the local authorities involved, and they should have been given some sort of representation, with an amalgamation of several local authorities having the right to pick somebody on the authority. And I think my good friend from Peel is quite right in her concerns, but I think you will find that the present incinerator will need all the refuse it can get (A Member: Rubbish!) in order to keep it going, because the fact is that you have a finite temperature range as far as this development is concerned. So, I think the idea that somehow you will be wanting to export it back. . . I think you will find that you are going to end up with a similar situation to Gibraltar. Now, I do hope that the minister can manage to take on board the points that one has brought about, and I do think that it is important, because I personally feel that we should really vote against this. If we have a sincere commitment towards local government reform, here is another function taken away from local government, and I personally think I would like to hear what the minister intends to do as far as the lay input into this waste authority is concerned. And will she tell us what timescale there is going to be as far as the rates that will be levied in relation to the incinerator are concerned? I do feel that they are important issues, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell. Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. I shall just be very brief on this one, sir. I would like to ask the minister: looking on the explanatory memorandum, on the first page, towards the bottom here, it talks about the make-up of the Waste Management Board, and it says ‘a chairman and four other non-Tynwald members’. Am I correct to assume, therefore, that the chairman would be a Tynwald member, and if so, I would ask her, cheekily: could she give us an idea who that member is likely to be, and where possibly could she find an impartial person within this hon. place (Interjections) to chair such a meeting? With respect to the membership of it, I have to put down on record that I do not share the same sentiments as the previous speaker. In fact, I would suggest that if a local authority member is to be on it, then fine, as one member, but I would like to see a more diverse representation (A Member: Hear, hear.) on this, which will include environmental pressure group representation, for instance, such as Isle of Man Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and a host of others (A Member: Hear, hear.), and also those who represent conservation on the Isle of Man, because, after all, this is a board that is going to oversee, hopefully, the safety operations of all aspects of waste disposal, and we have to have a fair and balanced board. I would concur with the views expressed by my hon. colleague for Peel, Mrs Hannan, that the word ‘reduction’ is not here, and yet in the last report, which was presented to us perhaps a little over a year ago, the revised waste management plan - which was received by this hon. place, and we had a presentation before that - did talk about ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’. There was also the word ‘recovery’ in there as well, but the hierarchy started off as reduction. Reduction does not feature in this order; the member for Peel is quite right. It talks about satisfying the Treasury capital procedures and the financial regulations in respect of issues of management enhancement of recovery on the one hand, reuse on the other, and recycling initiatives and the operation of landfill sites. So, reduction is not in there. The three ‘Rs’, in environmental terms, have been - and always will be - ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’, and that forms a circle in waste management terms. It looks to me, unless it is just a genuine omission, that this government is leaving that circle that is well established, well known and well regarded. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Rimington. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. I am very pleased to agree with the last speaker on the issue of the make-up of the board. I do believe there should be a diversity there, and there has been no determination of whether it should be x, y and z, or representative of this or that or whatever, at this point in time. By extending the board from three to five in a total number does allow that flexibility for balance and diversity on it, and also, obviously, the proposed chairman, whoever that might be, would wish to have some influence on the membership of who he or she might wish to work with. I mean, that would be an obvious issue, especially when you are stepping out into what is a very difficult and complex area, and it is a very new area. If maybe we were talking about things that exist already, such as the Office of Fair Trading or whoever, there is an existing organisation working pretty satisfactorily already and going ahead, and it is really just a question of slotting in people to carry on the good job which, by and large, is already being done. But this waste management board, when it comes into being, has got a job and a half, and it is going to have a very difficult time. There is going to be a high level of expectation of what it may achieve and, indeed, it might even replace the DHSS for the list of questions it might get from week to week and month to month (A Member: Hear, hear.), which might provide welcome relief in certain quarters. So, I do think that yes, there should be possibly a r™le for a local authority representative, but you do need people on that board who are going to be focused on that issue and, just casting my eye around the local authorities, I do not necessarily see names springing to the forefront of my mind - ‘Oh, that would be an excellent person’. Mr Karran: They are more likely to say the same about us in here. Mr Rimington: And it will be important for this board to have the best people for the job, coming in from a range of interests. The President: I call on the minister to reply. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. I had actually already spotted the typo on the last page, and I thought perhaps no-one would actually notice it, and I perhaps should have referred to it in my opening remarks, but it is indeed just that. I think that, at that time, the recovery of abandoned vehicles was being discussed, and it may well have just happened, but ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ is exactly the policy of the department. Now, the hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan: I hope that puts her mind to rest about a change in policy. It is purely and simply a typographical error. But I do want to make a point about plastics, which has been made by Mrs Hannan. We are hoping to introduce shortly a ‘wash and squash’ recycling initiative for plastic bottles, plastic bags and the like. We are working all the time to introduce new initiatives to encourage recycling. I was not pleased about the mention of dioxins blowing over Douglas, and once again I would like to put it into perspective. The dioxins from the emissions from the energy-from- waste facility will be 0.04 of a nanogram, which turns out to be one grain of long grain rice per year. If you equate that to the exhaust emissions of cars before their catalytic converter kicks in, running up Richmond Hill, you are talking about bags of rice. So, let us put into perspective the amount of dioxins that will be emitted in the energy-from-waste plant. (Interjections) The hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran, mentioned the membership of the board. When persons for duty on statutory boards were being considered, an advertisement was placed in the local papers asking people to apply. I think we were all surprised by the quality and the expertise of the people who applied to serve on all our statutory boards, so we do have a pool of people that could be available. There was also a mention of a secret agenda regarding rates, which I found quite amusing, coming from the Chairman of the Water Board that introduced a rating system that is now quite harmful to a lot of people in trying to manage the water rates they are paying at the present time. (Mr Karran interjecting) Yes, but it is front-loaded. What I would say about the energy-from-waste facility is that it is not a large facility. There is no question that we will have to provide that facility with waste. We will have to reduce. We know how much the waste arisings are on the Island each year, and unless we recycle and reduce the amount of waste we are producing, we will not be able to handle it at the energy-from-waste facility; that is quite definite. The hon. member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell, once mentioned about the make-up of the board, and yes indeed, we are looking for environmental representation amongst the board; we would be delighted to have that. We are wanting to work with all the environmental agencies on the island in regard to all our recycling, reuse and energy-from-waste facility operations. And also the point that we might not be able to find a chairman: well, I know that a person has been approached, and it is a person I admire greatly for his impartiality in every regard, so I feel certain that we will have an able chairman of the board. My hon. colleague for Rushen once again commented about the make-up of the board, and what I would say is that, indeed, we will be looking for the best people for the job to manage the energy-from-waste facility. Mr President, I hope this has answered the queries from the hon. members, and I beg to move. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you is at 40. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs Anderson, Cannan, Quine, Rodan, Quayle, Rimington, Gill, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Houghton, Henderson, Cretney, Duggan, Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Mr Downie, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Singer, Earnshaw, Gelling and the Speaker - 20 Against: Mr Karran - 1 The Speaker: Mr President, the motion standing at item 40 has been passed by the House of Keys, with 20 for and 1 against. In the Council - For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs Lowey, Waft, Dr Mann, Mr Kniveton, Mrs Christian and Mr Crowe - 7 Against: None The President: Hon. members, with 7 for in the Legislative Council, the motion therefore carries. Cremation (Fees) Regulations 2002 — Approved Item 41. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move: That the Cremation (Fees) Regulations 2002 [SD No 113/02] be approved. The President: We will turn to 41, the Cremation Act 1957, and again I call on Mrs Crowe, Minister for Local Government and the Environment, to move. Mrs Crowe: Mr President, these regulations replace the Cremation (Fees) Regulations 2001 and increase the fees that may be charged for completing various certificates required under the cremation regulations. The Cremation Regulations 2000 provide that, before a cremation can take place, certain certificates have to be signed by the doctor who used to treat the deceased and also by an independent doctor. The fees are increased annually in the Isle of Man, in line with the fees currently recommended by the British Medical Association. Since the fees are payable to the funeral director, to the doctor, no government expenditure is involved. Further details have previously been circulated to hon. members, and I beg to move, Mr President, and invite the hon. member for South Douglas, Mr Duggan, to second. Mr Duggan: I am pleased to second, Mr President. (Interjections and laughter.) The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Mr President, I rise to oppose these increases. This is not a reciprocal agreement, although it appears to be an annual increase where we go in line with the United Kingdom, and each year it seems to me that I have to stand up and ask why this figure is above inflation. Not only is it above inflation this time, it is well above inflation. We heard yesterday that inflation on the Island is 0.9 per cent; this increase is just under seven per cent. Even taking into account the UK inflation, this must be three or four times the inflation in the UK. And then one has got to say, ‘Well who is recommending these fees, that the doctors should get such an increase of seven per cent?’ It is the British Medical Association; they are recommending it and they are doctors, so you have got to take that with a pinch of salt. There is no independent assessment on this, and I believe that they have had such increases over the last few years, well above inflation. If we were to apply the inflation on the Isle of Man this year, it would probably take it up to £44.95, an increase of about 45 per cent, and therefore I am going to vote against this, because I believe that the rises have been above inflation for several years now, and this year they should therefore remain as they are. The President: Minister. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. It is indeed the British Medical Association that recommends the implementation of the proposed fees, I think in line with many professional bodies. I dare say the Pharmacists’ Association recommends that they also receive increased funding year on year. I have no problem with anyone voting against an increase decided upon by a professional medical body, but in fact I think we would, as a department, need to be responsible and respond to the fact that this has been recommended by the British Medical Association and that we need to make sure that our cremations go ahead in a properly certificated manner. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you is printed at 41 on the order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Land Registry (Amendment) Rules 2002 — Approved Item 42. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move: That the Land Registry (Amendment) Rules 2002 [SD No 112/02] be approved. The President: We turn, then, to 42, to do with the Land Resistration Act, and again I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment to move. Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. These rules amend the Land Registry Rules 2000 by making, in light of working experience, a few minor modifications to the original rules. Rule 2 improves the protection given by an entry in the register of transactions giving rise to compulsory first registration of the title and prescribes a new form 6 for applying such an entry. Rule 3 requires an appeal to the land commissioner to be lodged within 21 days of the decision appealed against. We have circulated further details to hon. members of the Court. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. member Mr Houghton. Do you wish to second sir? Mr Houghton: Yes, sir. The President: Thank you. Hon. members, the motion before you is printed at 42. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Judicial Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2002 — Approved Item 43. The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission to move: That the Judicial Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2002 [SD No 64/02] be approved. The President: Item 43. On this occasion, I call on the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the hon. member of Council, Mr Waft. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. The amendment scheme has been made by the Civil Service Commission to allow for the superannuation of a post of Deputy Deemster. The scheme now includes that the office will be superannuated on the same basis as that of the High Bailiff and Deputy High Bailiff, which will have a normal retirement age of 65. This hon. House may recall that, at the January sitting, an order amending schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1984 was approved to enable this amendment to the judicial pension scheme. This scheme will come into operation on 1st April 2002. Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Hon. member Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Mrs Hannan, member for Peel. Mrs Hannan: Yes. Could I just ask, about the appointment of a Deputy Deemster, Eaghtyrane, whether this position has been advertised and whether there is a date for the commencement of duties of the Deputy Deemster? I have asked questions about this at the last sitting. I wonder if the interviews have taken place, and if they have not, has the vacancy been advertised, and who, in actual fact, would conform to serving as a Deputy Deemster, and would that position be permanent? The President: I call on the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission to reply to the debate. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. The Civil Jurisdiction Act 2001 gives the authority to the Lieutenant-Governor, if he thinks fit, to appoint Deputy Deemsters to hold office for such a period and subject to such conditions as the Governor may specify, and such appointees shall have all the status and jurisdictions of a judge of a High Court. A proposal to establish a post of Deputy Deemster has followed an organisational review of the judiciary, which found that a substantial amount of the High Bailiff’s time - approximately 80 per cent - was currently taken up with high court work, but with the High Bailiff operating in an acting capacity. It was therefore considered appropriate to establish an additional High Court post at Deputy Deemster level. I am not aware that we have progressed any further than that, hon. member. The President: Hon. members, the motion before you is that the Judicial Pension (Amendment) Scheme be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Coroners Fees Order 2002 — Approved Item 44. HM Attorney-General to move: That the Coroners Fees Order 2002 [SD No 76/02] be approved. The President: We turn to 44 and I call on Her Majesty’s Attorney-General to move. The Attorney-General: Yes, thank you, Mr President. The Coroners Fees Order 2002, made by their Honours the Deemsters, after consultation with the Treasury, brings into effect the routine biennial increase in the fees payable to the coroners in line with inflation. Mr President, the increase, with the exception of item 4, where the fee has been increased to £10, is at 6.5 per cent and is at the request of the coroners and is made with the agreement of the Deemster to give a true reflection of the work involved. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that, with the exception of the fees relating to duties concerned with the jury, the fees will, in fact, be discharged by the parties to the litigation in question and therefore should not have any call on the public purse. Mr Lowey: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Can I ask the learned Attorney, then: inflation over two years he has taken as being 6.5 per cent; is it? I do not think it is 6.5 per cent over two years. And can I also ask: where the various commissions are mentioned, have any of those percentages been changed, or are they still the same - where it says ‘commission 5 per cent’ and ‘commission 2.5 per cent of the amount collected’? The Attorney-General: Mr President - The President: Mr Attorney-General. The Attorney-General: I am sorry if I have the percentages wrong, then, but the brief that I was given was that the increase is 6.5 per cent, with the exception of item 4, where the fee has been increased to £10, and that the increases were in line with inflation. I am sorry if I have that wrong, and perhaps I could check that. Mr Singer: With your permission, Mr President - could I explain further? The President: Mr Singer. Mr Singer: - There are certain numbers here where the coroners take commissions on the amount collected. And what I asked was: have those percentages changed, or are they remaining the same - 21/2 per cent commission on collecting a debt single payment et cetera? The Attorney-General: Mr President, as far as I am aware, they are exactly the same as before. The President: Exactly the same. They are. Hon. members, the motion, then, that I put to you is that the Coroners Fees Order 2002 be approved. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Telecommunications Policy — Communications Commission Response to Independent Report by InterConnect Communications Limited — Endorsement of Conclusions and Action Plans — Motion Carried Item 45. The Chairman of the Communications Commission to move: That Tynwald receives the Communications Commission response to the independent report by InterConnect Communications Limited on telecommunications sector policy for the Isle of Man and endorses the conclusions and plans for action set out therein. The President: We turn, then, hon. members to item 45, and I call on the Chairman of the Communications Commission to move. Mr Braidwood. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. Members of this hon. Court may recall that, last year, the Communications Commission published an independent consultants’ report on telecommunications policy in the Isle of Man. All members of Tynwald were, at that time, sent the executive summary and the commission’s first comments upon it; the full report was placed in the Tynwald Library. The Communications Commission has now finalised its reaction to the report in the light of public and industry comment in the intervening period, and all hon. members have been sent the commission’s response to that report. In addition, the Communications Commission invited all members of this hon. Court to a briefing earlier this month, to explore further the details of the report and the commission’s response to it. And I am glad to report that a majority of hon. members were able to attend. Others have approached the commission and received individual answers to their enquiries. Mr President, in the autumn of 2000, the Communications Commission invited tenders from a number of independent consultants to undertake a thorough review of the telecommunications and associated regulatory r≥gime on the Island and to recommend a blueprint for the future. After thorough scrutiny, InterConnect Communications were selected to undertake that review. They reported their findings and recommendations to the commission on 30th April 2001. In July 2001, the Council of Ministers directed that all members of Tynwald be provided with the commission’s initial comments and with copies of the executive summary. The same documentation has been provided to the recently-elected members of the House of Keys. Copies of the full text of the report were placed in the Tynwald Library and it was also published. The Council of Ministers further decided that the commission’s response should be placed before this hon. Court of Tynwald, after the general election for the House of Keys had been completed. Hon. members have been sent the response by the commission to each of the recommendations made by the independent consultants, including a commentary on the current position where there have been recent developments, together with the executive summary from the report, and, as I have mentioned, a briefing for hon. members has been given by the commission earlier this month. I shall not therefore go step-by-step through the details of the ICC report, nor every individual conclusion or recommendation contained in it. Hon. members have that available to them, along with the commission’s detailed response, but it is worth recalling that the licence granted to Manx Telecom in 1986, to run for 20 years from 1st January 1987, was based on the Telecommunication Act of 1984. Since that time, there has been substantial growth and change in telecommunications throughout the world, and the Isle of Man is no exception. Indeed, in many respects, as hon. members will be aware, this Island leads the world, but it has been clear for some time that the current statutory powers of the commission for effective regulatory control of Manx Telecom are restrained by the licence and subsequent side agreements. It is therefore timely for this hon. Court to consider whether the conclusions and recommendations of the ICC report, as responded to by the commission, are an appropriate blueprint for the development of telecommunications regulation in our Island. The main conclusions and recommendations of the independent consultants are contained in the executive summary to that report, but it is worth highlighting the following in particular. The provision of fixed and mobile services should continue to be provided by a single operator. That is: it is not to say that there should necessarily be a sole provider on this Island, but that any service provider could offer both fixed and mobile services. Furthermore, Manx Telecom is highly regarded by the business sector, in terms of the quality service they provide. There is little criticism of the general charges for fixed-line telephony services from the business community - though, as hon. members might expect, this does not extend to residential users - but Manx Telecom should be required to provide transparent accounting arrangements as to its fixed, mobile and internet service provider operations. It should also provide transparent accounting between its network and service activities and its mobile infrastructure. The ICC report also recommends that there is scope for reduction in off-peak mobile phone charges and the rental charged to Pronto users. Manx Telecom should also explore ways of reducing roaming charges for Pronto phones in the UK. I am pleased that progress on both these fronts is already being made. Mr President, turning to the regulatory structure, ICC comment that it is inappropriate that ministers should chair regulatory bodies such as the Communications Commission, but that the collegiate structure of the Communications Commission should remain. The commission accepts these recommendations on the collegiate structure and the chairmanship of the commission. It would propose that changes should feature in new communications legislation; implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights, effected on the Island by the Human Rights Act 2001, also requires a separation of broadcasting regulation from government. A new Communications Act will be required to incorporate modernised duties, functions and powers of the regulator. If the principle of the forthcoming United Kingdom Communications Bill, which may include not only telecommunications broadcasting but also spectrum management, were considered appropriate for the Island, Manx legislation would draw on the UK model, both in content and timescale. It is therefore likely to emerge in 2003-04. I can report that officials from the commission and from the Attorney-General’s Chambers are liaising with the United Kingdom Communications Bill Drafting Unit to progress these matters. If the proposal for a new Manx Communications Act is rejected, then the existing Telecommunications Act can be amended, rather than be repealed and replaced by a new Act. Two other significant recommendations may be worth highlighting. Firstly, the current Manx telecom licence fee of 15 per cent of profits should be abolished and the prices be reduced by a similar sum. Licence fees should cover the cost of providing regulatory services. At several of the public consultations, the commission heard the opinion, with which it agrees, that the 15 per cent licence fee in fact represents a further levy on the paying public; a hidden tax. There is good reason to follow the recommendation of the consultants, that licence fees in future should be set to cover the cost of regulation. Secondly, licences should be granted to Cable and Wireless and to Manx Optical Agency, subject to certain caveats, if they request them. The commission agrees that it would be entirely inappropriate for any operator to provide a government- subsidised service, unless that subsidy was generally available to all suppliers of that type of service. The commission is in discussion with Cable and Wireless, with a view to enabling that company to open up its existing link - which crosses the Island - to customers here, thus providing a fully commercial alternative to Manx Telecom’s off-Island connections. Mr President, the full detail of the ICC report and the commission’s response to it are in the hands of hon. members. I believe that the conclusions contained therein provide a sound blueprint for the future regulation of telecommunications on this Island for the new century. I beg to move. The President: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Hon. member for West Douglas, Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. I think we have seen a very good report. A lot of work has gone into the report itself, and, in fact, the commission have done well in the paper that they have produced on the responses to the independent report. I would just like to put on record one or two issues in areas which give me cause for concern, and also some of the areas of concern which have been passed onto me by various information systems providers and other people who are now having difficulty with the monopoly that Manx Telecom holds at the moment because of what has happened, even in the last few months. Manx Telecom have embarked on a number of new business initiatives, and they are in competition with those information service providers who have to rely on Manx Telecom’s system. So, they are already seeing what the amount of business traffic is which is coming through, and they know what they are being charged, so I want to make sure that some people out there who are independent are not being undercut and they are not having the rug pulled out from underneath them. Now, I think that the situation regarding telecoms and communications is moving so fast that it is very, very difficult for people who are not in the industry to keep up with it, and that is why I am very glad, really, that we have got the commission. There are very, very capable people on the commission, and I think they keep themselves very much up to date and they are trying to act in the best interest of government in general. But what I think we do want to keep our eye on i s that we do not want to get ourselves in a situation where we have all our eggs in one basket. I know that Manx Telecom will say ‘We have this marvellous system, this self-sealing ring, and if it is cut in any way, well, the reverse flow will take place’, but I honestly think that is just not good enough. Now, there are initiatives which may or may not be picked up in the future: the Manx Optical Agency is one. That is the situation where hon. members will be aware that, when the electricity cable was laid to the Isle of Man, there were fibre optics included, which could provide a very good source for communications in the future. As has been mentioned, there is a cable which crosses this Island and which belongs to Cable and Wireless. There could be opportunities there. And I think that now we have got things like internet gambling and a lot of other opportunities coming in on the back of that on the Island, some of the people who we provide a system for will actually want a back-up. They will want to know, ‘What if something happens to the telecoms situation?’ and they will want to know that there is another system in place that they can use for a fall-back position. Now, I am not a person who dabbles in the stock market, but Manx Telecom shares now are the lowest that they have ever been; they are really in a prime and right position for taking over. Now, if somebody did take Manx Telecom over - I am not saying that it is likely to happen - how can you be guaranteed that you will get the same level of service? (Interjections) We are very, very fortunate in the Isle of Man, because we have a good core of people here - people who have put a lot of investment back into the Island - but you could argue that Manx Airlines did that. So, I think, hon. members, what we have got to look at is to make sure that we do not put ourselves in the position where we have all our eggs in one basket. There are a number of people outside who, I am sure, would love to take Manx Telecom on - Spanish companies, French companies - so we just need to be aware. I think it is a good report, but I would just like to get confirmation from my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Braidwood, that in recommendation 3.2 and 3.3, this part of the report is just a straightforward report and it is not written in tablets of stone, and at some stage in the future, as and when the technology moves on, we will be allowed to get back in and see what is on the horizon and not be turning any opportunities away or stringing ourselves up. I think it is very important, the whole business is moving very, very quickly, and it is important we do not tie ourselves down needlessly. The President: Hon. member for Middle. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. In rising to offer my support to the motion, I should like to acknowledge its depth and comprehensiveness, but also to congratulate Manx Telecom for the very successful way in which they have operated thus far, offering a top quality service and performing as a world-class operator. However, I am concerned at what appears to be an above-average return on capital in comparison with other operators, and I am pleased to note from the report that it acknowledges scope for reductions in Manx Telecom prices. Mr President, as newly-nominated chairman of the Manx Optical Agency, and member of the Department of Trade and Industry with responsibility for e-commerce and for the fibre optic cable, I think also it is appropriate that I should comment. I think, as the minister has already just alluded to, that we accept, and indeed welcome, the recommendation contained within the report that the Manx Optical Agency should be issued a licence, subject to no government subsidy and presentation of an acceptable business case. A decision was made - and I believe, correctly - to bring the fibre-optic cable within government control, and we are actively assessing the options open to us for the utilisation of this asset to identify the best way forward. What we must seek to ensure is that businesses operating on the Isle of Man have access, for their broadband communications, to a truly resilient telecommunications infrastructure, and at an internationally competitive cost. I believe we must be forward-looking and I also believe that the cable has a vital part to play if we are to promote the Island as a credible e-commerce platform. This will, of course, support the government’s strategy of economic diversification. Finally, Mr President, I hope that we will be able to work constructively with the Treasury and the Communications Commission to bring this about. Thank you. The President: Hon. member of Council, Mr Waft. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. Unfortunately, I could not get to the presentation - and I do not know how I missed it, but somehow I did - but I did look through the report very carefully, and I have had some words with the director. My main concern with the consultancy is that they do not appear to have consulted with anybody outside the Island; they seem to have been going around asking local people, ‘What is the service like?’, and then they spoke to Manx Telecom and people within our own environment. The position with Cable and Wireless: I understand that talks are taking place now, but this is a little bit like bolting the door after the horse has bolted. The fixed and mobile service and the single operator: I think that if you had spoken to Manx Telecom for five minutes, you would soon realise that that was the way forward and the fixed operator and the single operator were the only way to go. They have offered a high-quality service - and nobody can take anything from them in that way - and I am glad they pointed out that they are transparent at accounting: that was obviously in need of addressing. The mobile and roaming charges: that has been a cause for many complaints that I have received, and I am sure that they have seen that they need to look at that, especially with this coming up, and they have done. I am a bit concerned that our regulator - or our Director of Communications - does not have the full regulation ‘clout’, as it were, that OFTEL has. OFTEL has to look at many other organisations over there, but our regulator needs a lot more putting behind him to make decisions. The licence fee of 15 per cent of the profits: I would agree with those who do say that that is a further levy on people who pay their telephone bill; they are paying their telephone bill, the company is getting the profits, and we are getting 15 per cent again. I mean, it is a nice back- door tax credit for the Isle of Man, and I can understand people not wanting to rock the boat - and we all have to address that issue with the minister at the end of the year, and he will tell you where all the money comes from - but I thought the whole point of this fibre optic cable coming to the Isle of Man was the possibility of a competitor in the future. I think we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater and say we are not going to go down that road at all and let Manx Telecom have it or not light it or anything like that in the future, so I think we should think about that very carefully before we take any decision and keep our options open. I also have one other problem to report, and that is their opinion of what a monopoly is. Well, a monopoly is certainly not the same as their interpretation is in the UK, where it is down to about 30 per cent of the business. You can say that Manx Telecom are far in excess of that. So, that is my own view, Mr President: to keep our options open and to see which way we go. Thank you, Mr President. The President: I call on the chairman to reply to the debate. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. I will try to cover Mr Waft and Mr Downie’s proposal. The whole point, at the moment, is that Manx Telecom have a monopoly. If they are issued with a new licence, this will take the monopoly away from them. As Mr Waft has already mentioned, the director is in negotiations with Cable and Wireless, so it will not stop another operator coming in, as has been mentioned by Mr Downie and the Manx Optical Agency. They could be issued with a licence, but it needs more examination to make sure that there is no subsidy to the Manx Optical Agency. Now, Mr Downie mentioned ISPs, and I know that the commission is aware of some of the problems being experienced by some ISPs, and we are talking to Manx Telecom on this matter. He was also very concerned when he talked about the share price of telecommunications companies. Manx Telecom was part of BT; it is now part of mmO2. The licence is to Manx Telecom, not to its shareholders, so the licence is for Manx Telecom. Therefore, if the company is bought - mmO2 is bought - Manx Telecom is part and that will be the licence; they will still have the licence. But if a new licence is issued, they will not have that monopoly. Also, Mr Downie talked about the resilience. Yes, Manx Telecom have. . . we have. . . in the Isle of Man, that is one advantage: we have got a very resilient telecommunications structure, not just to the UK, but now to Ireland, and from Ireland to the UK, so we have a ring structure. Of the fibre optic cable, used by Manx Telecom and all the telecommunications going off the Island, I think about 0.2 per cent of the telecommunications is used, and with advances in telecommunications and advances in technology, that can even be further condensed. So there is plenty of space available. If we are talking online gambling, if we were talking other technology advances, it will be there. We have the capacity at the present time. I thank Mr Quayle for his support and congratulating Manx Telecom on since 1986 and how it has improved. Pronto prices have come down: they were reduced by 50 per cent before Christmas and they are looking at the roaming charges. So they know themselves that they are in a competitive world. Yes, I totally agree with Mr Waft: there is no point in having the 15 per cent levy as long as we know that that £1.5 million is coming off the telecommunication charges in the Isle of Man, so that it will benefit all people and all users in the Isle of Man. Mr President, I have not got a lot more to say; I just beg to move. The President: Hon. members, the motion, then, that I put to you is printed at 45 on your order paper. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Now, hon. members, I think we have had two fairly lengthy days. I think the air, from looking around, seems to be getting a little bit soporific. We have but four items to complete tomorrow, and I think it is an appropriate time at which to adjourn. Thank you, hon. members. The Court adjourned at 7.20 p.m.