Printed (by Authority) by Nelson Press Co. Ltd., St. George's Street, Douglas, Isle of Man

REPORT OF PDEOCEEDORIGS OF TiikTnAro mums

Douglas, Tuesday, June 15, 1982 at 10.30 a.m.

Present: The Governor (Rear Admiral Sir Nigel Cecil, K.B.E., C.B.). In the Council: The President of the Council (the hon. J. C. Nivison, C.B.E.), The Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Vernon Nicholls), the Attorney-General (Mr. T. W. Cain), Messrs. G. T. Crellin, R. E. S. Kerruish, R. MacDonald, W. A. Moore, P. Radcliffe, A. H. Simcocks, M.B.E., G. C. Swales, with Mr. T. A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council. In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.), Messrs. R. J. G. Anderson, W. K. Quirk, J. J. Radcliffe, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. C. M. Christian, Dr. E. J. Mann, Messrs. A. A. Callin, D. G. Maddrell, R. A. Payne, E. G. Lowey, M. R. Walker, N. Q. Cringle, Dr. D. L. Moore, Mr. C. A. Cain, Dr. H. D. Teare, C.V.O., Messrs. G. A. Quinney, M.B.E., G. V. H. Kneale, A. C. Duggan, E. M. Ward, B.E.M., D. F. K. Delaney, D. Martin, J. A. Brown, with Mr. R. B. M. Quayle, Clerk of Tynwald.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE.

The Governor: Hon. members, I have apologies for absence from the hon. member for West Douglas, Mrs. Hanson, who is away on Board business.

BILLS FOR SIGNATURE.

The Governor: We have one Bill for signature, the Land Registration Bill 1982. If members agree we will continue with our business while it is signed.

It was agreed.

PAPERS LAID BEFORE THE COURT

The Governor: I call on the Clerk to lay papers.

The Clerk: I lay before the Court:— Customs and Excise Acts (Application) Act 1975— Spirits Regulations (Application) Order 1982. Excise Warehousing (Etc.) Regulations (Application) Order 1982. (The United Kingdom Regulations in connection with the above two Orders are available for perusal in the Central Reference Library.) Customs and Excise Acts (Application) (Amendment) Order 1982.

Apologies for Absence. — Bills for Signature. — Papers Laid Before the Court. T932 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Fees, Charges, Etc. Enabling Act 1972— Sale of Methylated Spirits (Variation of Fees, Charges, Etc.) Order 1982. Variation of Fees Order 1982. Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975— Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 1982. Price Marking Act 1976— Price Marking (Petrol Prices) (Amendment) Order 1982. Weights and Measures Acts 1971 and 1978— Weights and Measures, Measuring Equipment (Liquid Fuel Delivered from Road Tankers) Regulations 1982. Town and Country Planning Acts 1934 to 1981— Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982. (Plan available for inspection in the Members' Room.) Manual Workers— Manual Workers Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme 1982. Social Security Legislation (Application) Act 1974— Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 2) Order 1982. British Nationality (Fees) Act 1949— British Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1982. Cremation Act 1957— Cremation Regulations 1982. Game Acts 1882 to 1971. Game Order 1982. Road Traffic Act 1963— Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1982. Traffic Signs (Speed Limits) Regulations and General Directions 1982. Immigration— Immigration (Registration with Police) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Regulations 1982. Highways (Transfer) Act 1981-- Transfer of Highways (Castletown) Order 1982. Transfer of Highways (Peel) Order 1982. Transfer of Highways (Ramsey) Order 1982. Transfer of Highways (Port St. Mary) Order 1982. European Communities— Applicable European Communities Secondary Legislation, April 1982. Accounts— Audited Accounts of the Government Treasurer for the year ended 31st March 1981. Annual Reports- Repo•t of the Isle of Man Board of Education for the year ended 31st March 1981. Annual Report of the work of the Isle of Man Board of Education in the exercise of their functions under the Children and Young Persons Acts 1966 to 1974, for the year ended 31st March 1981.

Papers Laid Before the Court. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T933

Report of the Isle of Man Electricity Board for the year ended 31st March 1981. Report of the Health Services Advisory Council for the year ended 31st March 1981. Report of the Isle of Man Harbour Board for the year ended 31st March 1981. Annual Report of the Isle of Man Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal for the year ended 31st March 1982. Report of the Church Commissioners for the Isle of Man for the year ended 31st December 1981.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL—TYNWALD APPROVAL FOR FUTURE POLICY —QUESTION BY MR. DELANEY.

The Governor: We will now turn to the Question Paper. Question number 1. I call upon the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of Executive Council— When do Executive Council propose to seek Tynwald's approval to a programme of policies for the next five years?

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, the hon. member, I am sure, will appreciate that without any strong recommendations from Executive Council in the past the decisions on policy have basically been made by the Finance Board through the Budget. At the Employment Committee level we have discussed policy for employment, which must be one of our priorities, for the next five years, and the Chairman of Finance Board and I will be having further meetings on direct policy. We will then report firstly to Executive Council and I hope to be able to report back to Tynwald in October. Com- prehensive and effective long-term planning requires a full appraisal and careful consideration of all the facts, and it is becoming abundantly clear that if Executive Council is to formulate government policy, it must have a secretariat of the highest calibre, responsible entirely to it, but available to other boards and departments. At present the formulation of a long-term policy depends ultimately on the goodwill of boards, and sectional interest must be subordinate to overall interest. What we therefore need is a "think-tank" producing ideas for policies, checking with other boards their projected programmes, checking when apparently necessary individual items of expendi- li ture and reporting regularly to Executive Council. In the meantime, while investigating the possibility of setting up such a think-tank thought should be given to the possibility of such professional men also carrying out the duties in the resolution to be moved in item number 19 on today's Agenda.

Mr. Delaney: I am obliged to the hon. Chairman for his comprehensive answer, Your Excellency, and as a supporter of a five-year plan or plan of campaign to get this Island through these difficult years, I would ask the hon. Chairman: How at this moment is he not aware that boards may be carrying out policies which are probably contrary to policy which he wants this Island to pursue and Executive Council wish this Island to pursue? Also, when he mentioned the staff in his first answer, what staff has he to be able to liaise and co-ordinate policy which he may wish to implement through Executive Council, and to organise it so that boards and departments of this Government are in a position to follow the policy directions of his Council?

Executive Council—Tynwald Approval for Future Policy—Question by Mr. Delaney. T934 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Mr. P. Radcliffe: That is a very far-ranging question, Your Excellency! Mr. Delaney: It is a very important one. Mr. P. Radcliffe: A very important one. I think, basically, by co-operation with the Finance Board, who, as I have already said, over the past years have declared their policy through the Budget, we are well aware at Executive Council level, through the Chairman of Finance Board's being a member of Executive Council and keeping us informed of what is being done. If you can give us any instances of where boards are formulating policy contrary to what has been approved in the Budget, I would very much like to know of them. I keep in constant contact with the chairmen of the various boards who come to see me quite regularly and have discussions, and I have not up to now come across the situation where any board chairman is putting forward projects that have not been approved in the past Budget. As far as the staff situation is con- cerned, what I have emphasised to you this morning in my reply was the fact that the whole situation wants reviewing because at the present moment Executive Council do not have a think-tank or staff to advise the Executive Council on ideas that can be formulated, having discussed them with the principal executives of all other boards. And I have been progressing along these lines, and I am sure you will agree that you cannot change overnight a system that has been continued for many years. But I think the principle has got to be accepted that if Executive Council is going to formulate the policy they have got to get co-operation from all boards of Tynwald, and it is by co-operation we are going to produce this policy. Mr. Delaney: I thank the hon. Chairman. One supplementary: Would the hon. member take careful note of the answers given to question number 9 on this paper? Mr. P. Radcliffe: I certainly will, I have noted the Question Paper very thoroughly.

PRICE OF BARLEY—QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER.

The Governor: Question number 2. I call upon the hon. Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:— 1. What is the price to local millers of feeding barley out of intervention stocks during the month of June? 2. What is the price of feeding barley out of intervention stocks when sold for export during the month of June? Mr. .1. J. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, during the month of June local agricultural merchants and feeding-stuff manufacturers are able to purchase feed barley from inter- vention at f11967 pence per tonne ex stores. This price is fixed under the Cereals Intervention Arrangements and is the price at which the Board breaks even on the transaction. With regard to exports, I would advise that during the month of June no feed barley will be exported. The Board presently holds a modest stock of feed barley which, as a matter of policy, has been retained to meet anticipated local requirements prior to the 1982 harvest. Indeed, it would he very bad management on behalf of the Board to have grain for export as late in the marketing year as June since prices tend to fluctuate wildly at this time of the year with the approach of the new harvest. For

Price of Barley—Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T935

comparison purposes I would advise that if a consignment of grain were exported during June it might realise in the region of £115 per tonne. I would emphasise, how- ever, that this price is based purely on market intelligence and is based on Belfast prices. The minimum sale price is the price at which the Board breaks even on the sale, and is fundamental to the whole intervention system in that it encourages merchants, manufacturers, and indeed feeders to purchase grain ex farms at harvest time. The intervention is intended to handle only the grain that is surplus to local requirements, and not to act as the grain-broker of the Isle of Man. Hon. members may be interested to learn that Finance Board have agreed that when the Farm Improvement Scheme is reintroduced next April the Government grant for grain silos will be increased to the same level as now obtains for silage silos, thus enabling and encouraging growers to retain and store their grain more economically. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I am indebted to the hon. Chairman for his reply.

DOUBLE TAXATION AGREEMENT—QUESTION BY MR. J. N. RADCLIFFE. The Governor: Question number 3. I call upon the hon. member for Ayre, Mr J. N. Radcliffe. Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Finance Board:— In December last when submitting a question on the Double Taxation Agree- ment between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom, I expressed the hope that the new Finance Board would consider renegotiating this Agreement, bearing in mind that Manx residents in receipt of pensions and other income arising in the United Kingdom are subject to United Kingdom income tax on such income, and although relief is given for tax paid at source, that income is aggregated with all other income for the purpose of determining the effective rate of Manx taxation on all income from whatever source. Has the new Finance Board yet had the opportunity to review the Double Taxation Agreement 1955, and, if so, can you please indicate what progress has been made? Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, as my hon. predecessor said last December, the Inland Revenue in the United Kingdom was prepared to agree to the service pensions of former members of the Armed Forces being exempted from the United Kingdom tax in return for the supply of sufficient information about the affairs of other Manx 111 residents, and thus enable the Inland Revenue in the United Kingdom to take judicial proceedings against some persons. The previous Finance Board took the view that such an agreement, while marginally benefiting a few people here, would give rise to difficulties with many more others, including particularly those with pensions from civil employment which would continue to be liable to United Kingdom tax. The present Finance Board shares that view. It may be helpful to confirm that long before we had a Double Taxation Agreement with the United Kingdom a Manx resident had to submit a return of all his income to the Assessor. That was to ensure that a tax- payer with income from different sources, including the Isle of Man, paid Manx tax on the Manx portion of his income. There is nothing unjust or unfair about that, particularly in view of the fact that when it comes to giving relief to the tax paid in other countries we are more generous than most. Were this Court so minded we could

Double Taxation Agreement—Question by Mr. J. N. Radcliffe. T936 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 without reference to the United Kingdom amend our own tax laws to exclude United Kingdom income from Manx returns. However, that course of action would not only result in a very significant loss of revenue, but would also produce gross inequalities as between one taxpayer and another. Finally, it cannot be emphasised too strongly that the inclusion of the United Kingdom income in an assessment to Manx tax can in no case lead to even the wealthiest taxpayer having to pay more than 20 pence in the pound on income from Manx sources. In practice, the average or effective rate is substantially less than the 20 pence.

HOUSE PURCHASE SCHEME—QUESTION BY MR. BROWN.

The Governor: Question number 4. I call upon the hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of Finance Board:— Will you inform this hon. Court what criteria have been adopted by your Board for deter- mining the maximum amount of load available under the House Purchase Scheme?

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, hon. members are aware, I am sure, that the maximum amount of loan normally available under the House Purchase Scheme is £18,000. Members will no doubt recall that in the Budget debate last month in this hon. Court I made clear reference to the Finance Board's intention to ration the House Purchase Scheme vote to £5 million, which was one half of the estimate of the previous year. In an attempt to direct the limited moneys available towards those applicants who have a reasonable claim to low-cost home finance, Finance Board have set further limits to the Scheme. Firstly, any applicant whose annual income exceeds £12,500 will be refused assistance under paragraph 4 of the Scheme. Secondly, any applicant whose annual income exceeds £6,000 will only be eligible for a maximum advance of £16,000. Any applicant whose annual income is less than £6,000 is still eligible to receive the maxi- mum advance of £18,000. In this way we are trying to ensure that cheap mortgage finance remains available to the lower income groups. Hon. members may already be aware that there is plenty of mortgage finance available in the Island from commercial sources at around 131 per cent., and I understand that one local bank is about to under- take a major campaign to promote its mortgage facilities at that interest rate level. In conclusion, I would like to add that an appeal machinery does exist in most cases of hardship, and we welcome any members who wish to represent any of their con- stituents in this matter at such an appeal; in fact several hon. members of this Court have appeared recently on behalf of their constituents, and in any case of genuine hardship I am sure we have been able to help those particular individuals.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I would just like to thank the Chairman of Finance Board. The reason why I asked that question was that an article appeared in the "Examiner" where it stated that means test had been introduced by the Finance Board. and a ceiling of £16,000 had been introduced. From the answer given to me by the hon. member it is now clear that that is not the case, and I think that the press have a responsibility to the public in these cases and should check the facts; I feel that it is

House Purchase Scheme—Question by Mr. Brown. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T937

very dangerous when it could have put off even approaching the Finance Board to see if they could get that money, and I think that the press, for the sake of a 'phone call, could have checked their facts. That was the reason I asked that question. I thank the Chairman of Finance Board.

AIRLINE COMPANIES—TREATMENT OF PASSENGERS —QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER.

The Governor: Question number 5. 1 call upon the hon. Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Air- ports Board:— Whereas on the evening of Wednesday 2nd June 1982, a BMA flight from London and an Air UK flight from Manchester arrived over Ronaldsway and, being unable to land because of weather conditions, returned to Liverpool and Man- chester respectively. (a) Will you confirm that BMA whose flight returned to Liverpool, hosted its passengers overnight and flew them to the Island the following day, whereas the Air UK flight returned to Manchester and, apart from offering an on-going flight to Blackpool that evening, the Company abandoned its responsibility to its passengers and declined to accept any liability for accommodation, or the completion of their journey to their destination? (b) Which pattern of operation is regarded by your Board as being in the best interests of the travelling public?

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, it would be the easiest way to answer the question posed by the hon. Mr. Speaker if I was to say yes to (a), and the latter rather than the former to (b). But I think the hon. member is entitled to some explanation as to why I should say that. Because of the visibility at Ronaldsway on the evening of June 2nd — it varied between 200 and 250 metres — the British Midland flight from London and the Air UK Ltd. flight from Manchester were unable to land at Ronaldsway. This resulted in the London 'plane being diverted to Liverpool, and the Air UK from Manchester returning to Manchester. Subsequently the British Midland cancelled its flight to the Island and provided hotel accommodation for its passengers in Liverpool at the company's expense. However, I understand that the British Midland does not have any legal responsibility to provide this accommodation but did so to retain the goodwill of its passengers. If the aircraft had returned to its point of departure the passengers would have been advised to return home, but hotel accommodation would have been provided, again at the company's expense, for those passengers who were unable to do so. According to the British Midland operations manual, service transport would be provided to convey the passengers to their hotel and return them to the airport the following day. The Air UK aircraft was delayed for some 40 minutes before departing from Manchester because of the fog at Ronalds- way. Eventually the aircraft departed at 2010 hours, and because of the weather conditions in the Isle of Man returned to Manchester and landed at 2145. As I promised the hon. Mr. Speaker when I met him at Ronaldsway Airport, we received a full report from the Servisair assistant manager giving us the details of what occurred. Servisair has had much experience in civil aviation, not only at Manchester and the Isle of Man but throughout the United Kingdom; they are the official handling agents

Airline Companies—Treatement of Passengers—Question by the Speaker. T938 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

for Air UK Ltd. at Manchester Airport. On the evening of the 2nd June, Air UK Ltd. instructed Servisair that they should ensure that the passengers on the diverted flight were required to night-stop, and at their own expense. This is in accordance with Air UK Ltd. traffic instructions, and I understand there is no legal liability for the company to provide hotel accommodation. However, in answer to question (b), it is the airport's responsibility to ensure that the needs of the travelling public are catered for, and in particular that the airlines conform with the national and international standards. It is evident that the airlines differ regarding the provision of overnight accommodation, especially when an aircraft has to return to its point of departure. The Board believe that in such circumstances passengers should be provided with overnight accommo- dation at the airline's expense if they are unable to return home. The Board intends to raise this matter with the directors of Air UK Ltd. in the near future, even though it would appear that the non-provision of overnight accommodation complies with the Carriage by Air Act (Application and Provisions) (Isle of Man) Order 1967. So, Your Excellency, the simple answer: we do acknowledge, although not perhaps in the same language as the question is posed, that there was somewhat of a palaver because of the fog, and we do say that when fog occurs the Airports Board and the air operators have difficult times. Different air companies treat their passengers in a different way. British Midland, as you noticed, being diverted to Liverpool but having taken off from London, did make accommodation in Liverpool. Air UK, on the other hand, where the 'plane returned to Manchester, did not make any provision for their passengers to stay overnight other than that they could go off to Blackpool and be assured of a seat in the morning from Blackpool. The Board, however, intend to raise this matter so that we can have some uniformity, that where these things do occur, particularly where the passengers are unable to return to their own homes as would be the Manx people in the United Kingdom, provision may well be made for them, and we hope to raise this with the airline concerned.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I am indebted to the hon. Chairman. May I ask a supplementary? You say that on this particular occasion the attitude of Air UK was one which resulted from an unusual incident relating to fog. But it is not part of a pattern of irresponsibility known to your Board which has been developed by this airline over the last 12 months, a pattern, sir, which when interpreted means they could not care less about the well-being of their passengers?

The President of the Council: I could not agree with that suggestion by the hon. Mr. Speaker. We have had dealings with Air UK for many years; in fact they have carried something like 1,323,733 passengers over this last 10 years, and the majority of those passengers have been very satisfied indeed. We do, however, with all airlines find that when occasions like this arise, which is very, very aggravating for the passenger, the difficulties can arise and nobody is satisfied with the answer that is given. I do say that Servisair handle on behalf of Air UK at Manchester, and it is my understanding from the report that they were most courteous to the passengers; but they were acting according to instructions from Air UK, and there was no provision for accommodation, and they were carrying out instructions as per the company's policy. There are occasions, however, where the company would act differently. Had the aeroplane been diverted, perhaps, to another airport other than the airport of departure, the situation may well have been different, but I cannot agree that Air UK generally are not

Airline Companies—Treatement of Passengers—Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T939

courteous towards their passengers although I must admit there could be occasions with all airlines where a little irritation is very difficult to avoid. The Speaker: Your Excellency, may I ask a further supplementary? It relates to the Chairman's statement which indicates satisfaction with the operation. Are your Board not aware that a recent independent survey of passengers using this airline from Black- pool has revealed that no fewer than five out of seven passengers travelling on this airline are dissatisfied?

Mr. CaIlin: Your Excellency, a supplementary: I can well understand the airline not accepting liability for accommodation under these circumstances, but will the Chairman of the Airports Board give an undertaking that he will insist that for passengers who are unable to travel on a particular flight, the company does accept liability for allowing them to complete their journey when the fog lifts, or whatever is the reason for holding up the journey?

Mr. Duggan: A supplementary, Your Excellency: I would like to ask the hon. member: surely the airline should have compulsory insurance to cover these situations like this? What would be the case if a person did not have the money to meet these costs? That is what concerns me.

Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Your Excellency: Will the Chairman confirm that if he will carry out the suggestion made by the hon. member for Middle the air fares in the Isle of Man would be increased substantially to the detriment of the Isle of Man tourist industry and businesses?

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, I must confess to Mr. Speaker that 1 am not aware of the survey carried out where five out of every seven passengers were dissatisfied; I am not aware of that, but I will make it my business to find out about it. On the other hand I am aware that many, many passengers have been very, very satisfied, but when incidents like this do occur we have to admit that people get frustrated if they are delayed for five or ten minutes, but if they are cancelled com- pletely overnight all of us would be in the position of being very, very dissatisfied and disgruntled. It is very difficult, in answer to the hon. member for Middle, to give any assurances that we should insist that they accept liability. Regarding this, the hon. member, Mr. Delaney, my Vice-Chairman of the Board, did give an indication that if these assurances were given in order to make this provision — and here the hon. member for South Douglas must also agree — as far as insurance is concerned, if all these things were done, bearing in mind the enormous expense of running an airline and the enormous expense of crews and fuel, et cetera, the prices would even have to go higher than what they are today. Bearing in mind that some of the fares might be as low as £14 or £15, then if that fare is cancelled and that person has to be put up in a hotel for £30 a night, and subsequently carried the next day on that aeroplane, it does not make economic sense. It is fair to say that on long-distance hauls many air companies, regardless of the reason for the cancellation if it is cancelled overnight, will provide accommodation where they are receiving a fare of many hundreds of pounds. But it is very difficult on short hops where the fare could be very low for them to make this provision. But I would assure Mr. Speaker and all members of the Court that we are constantly looking at this, we are constantly having discussions with the

Airline Companies—Treatement of Passengers—Question by the Speaker. T940 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 airlines concerned and we will carry this out further. And I did give you the assurance in my main answer that we will try to get the policy laid down clearly, that in the event of them diverting, particularly to another airport, it shall be the policy that they should make provision. Once they have started the flight and returned we are of the opinion that that constitutes a different kind of a case too, and that they should make provision. And I can assure you we will take this up with the airlines concerned, and further questions will reveal certain things that are happening associated with the air- lines, but these are the assurances we will want of this airline, or any other airline, or any other airline in the future; that the passenger is of prime importance.

SHEEP—LIVEWEIGHT GRADING—QUESTION BY MRS. CHRISTIAN The Governor: Question number 6. I call upon the hon. member for Ayre. Mrs. Christian. Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:— Whereas it has been stated that the equivalent of the United Kingdom sheep regime will be implemented in the Isle of Man. And whereas the payments made under that regime will depend upon the grading achieved by animals being slaughtered now. And whereas there is as yet no liveweight grading procedure for sheep or any appeal procedure against grades given. When does your Board intend to introduce liveweight grading and/or an appeal procedure to assist the industry to maximise production of acceptable carcases? Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I should initially point out the difference between grading and certification which is, not unnaturally, a constant source of mis- understanding. It is perhaps in the title Government Meat Grader that the confusion arises, but that officer does not grade, as the title suggests, but judges carcases against a pre-determined quality specified by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and applicable throughout the United Kingdom. To see whether the carcases qualify for the payment of a Government subsidy — variable premiums — this is the certifica- tion, and here the role of a fatstock certifying officer in the United Kingdom ceases. The system is slightly more complicated on the Island, for although it is government policy that the government meat grader be not involved in grading, which is a com- mercial valuation of a carcase, he does at the present time still carry out the grading of sheep carcases in addition to his certification duties, though he does not do so for cattle. It is presumed that the hon. member for Ayre is referring to the certification of sheep carcases, for this is where Government is involved. I can advise at this time that at the July sitting of Tynwald my Board will be seeking approval to the Sheep Variable Premium Scheme 1982, which amends the existing scheme to bring it in line with a similar United Kingdom measure by increasing the maximum payable weight attracting subsidies. The opportunity has also been taken to amend the scheme so as to make provision for an appeals procedure as recommended by the Commission on the Certification Standards of Cattle and Sheep. The Board has been extremely for- tunate and credit must in this case go to the previous Board for making the initial approach in obtaining the services of Mr. Victor Clarke, I.S.O., M.B.E., as the appeals officer. Hon. members will recall that Mr. Clarke was Chairman of the Commission

Sheep—Liveweight Grading—Question by Mrs. Christian. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T941 which sat in 1981 and was at that time the Chief Fatstock Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That post made Mr. Clarke the foremost authority on certification in the United Kingdom, being in charge of all United Kingdom fat- stock certifying officers. Mr. Clarke, who is a Manxman, has now recently retired from that post and intends to shortly take up residence on the Island. Whilst therefore I can announce the appointment today, Mr. Clarke will not be able to commence his appeal procedure duties officially until later in the year. For the information of this hon. Court, I can advise that the Board keeps an accurate record of certification figures, and the present numbers of sheep failing to obtain certification are within acceptable levels and comparable to figures being obtained in similar areas in the United Kingdom. That record suggests to the Board that the implementation of a liveweight certification as an alternative procedure for sheep would not at this time be justified, bearing in mind the present rejection rate and the costs of implementing such liveweight facilities at a time when there are severe constraints on government expenditure. Furthermore, from time to time since last October Mr. Clarke makes unannounced spot checks at the abattoir to ensure that the certification standards are being correctly interpreted and applied by the government meat graders; indeed he is on the Island at this very time. Hon. members may be aware that Executive Council have appointed a sub- committee consisting of Mr. Percy Radcliffe, M.L.C., Mr. Roy MacDonald, M.L.C., and Dr. Edgar Mann, M.H.K. to whom the government grader is directly responsible. Discussions are presently taking place between my Board and this sub-committee whereby eventually this sub-committee will be completely responsible for supervising all aspects of grading at the abattoir, including the appeal procedure to which I earlier referred. When these discussions have been successfully concluded my Board will no longer have any direct connection with grading at the abattoir. Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, I am grateful to the Chairman for that very full reply, and I am sure the industry is well pleased to hear that at least an appeal pro- cedure will be introduced. Would the hon. Chairman be able to be a bit more specific about when this is likely to happen? Until such time there is an appeal procedure producers risk losing income. And would he not agree that until there is a liveweight certification system producers cannot maximise the production of certifiable carcases? Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I will certainly bear in mind the points raised by the hon. member. I think in my earlier reply I made it clear that unfortunately we are not able to give a specific date, and I think this boils down to the very domestic difficulty that the man is looking for a house, and as soon as he has found that I am sure he will be delighted to take up the appointment. I would agree with the inference that the hon. member has made that this is an extremely important appointment, and I am sure will go a long way towards getting the present system working well, and I feel that once we have achieved that, and bearing in mind that we have the Executive Council sub-committee who will be overseeing this arrangement, when we get this certification of the deadweight procedure working satisfactorily, that I would suggest certainly is the time to evaluate whether we should go ahead with any liveweight system. It could be that there would not then be the same demand. The Speaker: A supplementary? Your Excellency: The hon. Chairman has indicated that figures here portray, shall I say, an equivalent failure rate to that applicable in the United Kingdom —"in similar areas" was the expression he used. As there are no

Sheep—Liveweight Grading—Question by Mrs. Christian. T942 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 similar areas in the United Kingdom, 90 per cent. of through-put going through on live grading, would you perhaps on reflection agree that there can be no real com- parison? Would you also agree that in the United Kingdom it would be unlikely to find a situation where producers who are at present presenting animals for slaughter at the abattoir for export would have them turned away despite Local Government Board assurances that the slaughter-house facilities are available to all people? And would you also perhaps look into the position where producers are being penalised if they have the temerity to present goods other than to the Isle of Man Fatstock Marketing Association?

Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Mr. Speaker is in effect asking me to take a little look into the future. I accept the point about the comparisons; it is always difficult, but it is a time- honoured procedure in this Court to look at our neighbours and see if we can learn anything from them or compare our results with theirs. Looking to the future: at the moment could I just say that my Board is evolving a policy regarding its relationship with the abattoir. I am not promulgating board policy at this moment, but our thinking tends to be that Government provided the agricultural industry with an abattoir, which industry elected to run it themselves by their popularly elected committee, rather than a commercial outside organisation. I think I am correct in stating that. My Board further tends to the opinion that if any of that committee's customers are dissatisfied with the way the committee carry out their responsibilities it is to that committee that they should address themselves, and not to my Board. If the industry as a whole wishes my Board to take over that responsibility, so be it, but at the moment as far as I am aware my Board has not the authority to issue orders to the management of the abattoir or to the grader. In other words, I think perhaps by tradition the Board of Agriculture has tended to assume this responsibility, but it could well be that they have never under the present set-up had the authority to discharge that responsibility. This, Your Excel- lency, is the way our thinking tends to go at the moment. It is not intended to be the last word; we shall certainly be having very useful discussions with this sub-committee from Executive Council to hear their views, and having concluded those discussions I certainly hope and have confidence that a more clear-cut policy as relates to conduct at the abattoir and my Board's relation to it will be formed.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, with your permission, a further supplementary?: Having made reference to the operation of the organisation which handles the abattoir and so on, would you also look at the Acts which govern not only those people who operate the abattoir but also the Board of Agriculture, indeed the activities of everyone in this Court, which make it obligatory for the provision of slaughtering facilities at that abattoir, and would you look at the fact that those Acts are being ignored?

Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, we are, I can assure the hon. Mr. Speaker, looking at all these at this very moment, and we have sought the benefit of legal advice from the learned Attorney-General. As Mr. Speaker will be aware it is a complicated problem; there is no simple solution, but we do think we are approaching it from the right angle this time, and hopefully as I have said earlier, with the co-operation of this Executive Council sub-committee we are very hopeful that a more clear-cut line of responsibilities will be defined. And I think that perhaps is as far as we can gd this morning.

Sheep—Liveweight Grading--Question by Mrs. Christian. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T943

AIR UK LTD.—QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER. The Governor: Question number 7. I call upon the hon. Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Your Excellency, 1 beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Air- ports Board:— (1) Will you state which routes are operated by Air UK with the support of your Board? (2) Who are the present directors of Air UK? (3) Which of these directors are Manx residents? (4) Is your Board satisfied with the company's mode of operation, and, in particular, its record on passenger handling? The President of the Council: Your Excellency, Question (1) "Will you state which routes are operated by Air UK with the support of your Board?" I will answer if I may, Your Excellency, first of all which routes are operated by Air UK, because I am not sure whether the hon. questioner refers to financial support or the support of the granting of their licences, but I will answer it in this way: they operate from Man- chester, Blackpool, Glasgow, Dublin and from Edinburgh and Leeds/Bradford in the summertime only. As far as Manchester is concerned, there is no financial support at all for this particular route, or for Blackpool. There are certain concessions made on certain routes with regard to the landing fees; a reduction in landing fees is given on certain routes in the wintertime in order to encourage these operations to continue, and Glasgow is one of those ports, whereas we may not have any service at all if we were to impose the full charges for this particular port. "Who are the present directors of Air UK?" The present directors of Air UK Ltd. are Lord Nicholas Cayzer, The Hon. Anthony Cayzer, G. A. Adkin, Esq., A. E. Bristow, Esq., B. M. Chapman, Esq., N. M. Forster, Esq., N. B. E. Mountain, Esq., A. L Relf, Esq., Major J. R. C. Riley, C. E. Smith, Esq., J. C. Tye, Esq., and Captain R. Rankin. There are no directors of Air UK Ltd. who are Manx residents, but Air UK Ltd. is a part of the British and Common- wealth Group which incorporates the Manx Airlines trading in the Isle of Man as Air UK, a Manx-registered company, the directors of which are the Hon. Anthony Cayzer, T. L. Vondy, Esq., J. B. Mylchreest, Esq., J. C. Cain, Esq., G. C. Norrey, Esq., and N. M. Forster, and I am sure the hon. member knows that Mr. Vondy, Mr. Cain, Mr. Mylchreest and Mr. Norrey are resident in the Isle of Man. Air UK has operated to the Isle of Man for many years under the name of British Island Airways and British Island Airways (Manx) Ltd., which were part of the British and Commonwealth Group. Primarily because of the recession Air UK Ltd. had experienced difficulties in making the routes to the Isle of Man a viable concern, and during the last ten years the Com- pany— and I repeat what I said earlier — has handled 1,323,733 passengers to and from the Island. The Board therefore considered that the company's record was very satisfactory, even although last year there was a downward trend in the total number of passengers handled; this was not because of the operations of Air UK, it was associated with other factors. The Speaker: Your Excellency, with your permission I would like to ask a supple- mentary: You have expressed your Board's satisfaction, sir, with the company's mode of operation, yet is it not a fact that in the autumn of 1981 Air UK withdrew its Sunday service to and from Blackpool without notice? They subsequently withdrew the Saturday services also without even informing your Board, who were unaware of this particular development. Are you also aware that, reflecting an attitude which has become pronounced, a representative of Air UK, Mr. Peter Villa, when subjected to

Air UK Ltd.—Question by the Speaker. T944 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15. 1982 complaints by Manx persons about these withdrawals, was reported to have said that as far as Air UK was concerned the Island was lucky to have a service at all and it could be cut altogether? Is that the sort of attitude, Mr. Chairman, that you are pre- pared to accept in relation to a company which you support?

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, I readily agree that the service from Blackpool was withdrawn and subsequently the Sunday service was withdrawn, and I readily acknowledge that the Board was not informed prior to this, but I must say that this was an action taken because of the very, very low load factor on this particular operation. Where there is an aeroplane which can carry 40 people that has one or two passengers only travelling on these times, any business would have to do something about it, and this was the explanation that was given to us; it was because of the extremely low load factor on these particular routes in the winter months, and whilst we were not satisfied at the time with the method with which they did it we had to acknowledge that it was necessary for them for any efficient business; if there was no demand for that particular operation, the only thing was to withdraw it. I readily admit too that the then managing director of Air UK — I stress the then managing director of Air UK in answer to a question by a reporter, did say on being challenged that the Island was lucky to have the service it did have. I regret that the answer he gave may have been misinterpreted somewhat, but I must admit that the services that we receive in the wintertime, particularly to the Isle of Man from various places — from London, Manchester, Glasgow, Dublin — it is really remarkable that there are so many people travelling to justify all of these services. However, Mr. Speaker is right in drawing attention to the particular incidents that did happen. The Board at the time did draw attention and were somewhat disappointed that this had happened, but it was because of the lack of use for those particular services. However, Air UK, when running as British Island Airways, carried more passengers to the Isle of Man from Blackpool than any other airline from any port, and the experience with Air UK when they were Britsh Island Airways was very, very satisfactory; the amount of people they carried to Blackpool in particular was very, very considerable. This has been altered, largely since the introduction of the Ro-Ro; people used to come to Blackpool with their cars and leave them at Blackpool Airport and then fly over and hire a car in the Isle of Man, but now they can drive the car to Heysham onto the boat and use their own car whilst they are over here. The Blackpool service suffered considerably because of that, and then the coach air service has deteriorated enormously. A lot of firms in Britain were coaching people to Blackpool on inclusive holidays coming to the Isle of Man and this kind of traffic has become unfashionable; those people are going to other places, but nevertheless we have had, by and large, a very satisfactory relationship with Air UK over the years.

The Speaker: A further supplementary, Your Excellency: Arc you aware that there are other companies who would gladly operate these routes which Air UK despise, and would do it effectively?

The President of the Council: No, Your Excellency, we are not aware that there are other companies that would do this. We are aware that there are certain people who have nine-seater aircraft, and some of them suggest that with 17-seater aircraft that they could run many times to and from these particular places and in the event

Air UK Ltd.—Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T945

of them carrying high load factors they would possibly go in for larger aircraft. We are aware of that. There are always a lot of entrepreneurs eager and anxious to get in on routes with these small aircraft, but the experience in the aircraft industry has been that these people have come but have gone rather quickly and we believe, if you like, that the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know.

MANX ELECTRIC RAILWAY—RADIO AND TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES—QUESTION BY MR. CALLIN. The Governor: Question number 8. I call upon the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Call in. Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Manx Electric Rail- way Company:— What contracts, if any, has your Board with any company providing radio or telecommunication services? Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, in answer to the hon. member's question, may I inform the Court that the Manx Electric Railway Board at this moment in time have three contracts with companies providing radio and telecommunication services. The company contracts are: Manx Radio Limited, J. Kennish Limited and Island Telecom- munications Limited. The lease of Manx Radio Limited is on an annual basis; it was at £106 until revised to £265 this year for use of part of the building. The lease with J. Kennish Limited expired in 1980 and was only an annual agreement, and the rent shared with the Forestry Board at £25 each. The lease with Island Telecommunications Limited is an annual lease under preparation at a sum of £1,000 per annum, with use of part of the building. I hope this information gives the hon. member the details he requires, and my Board are grateful to the hon. member for asking this question as it now gives me the opportunity of giving public information of the improved radio communications and the saving of taxpayers money my Board have been able to achieve in a short period of time. One of the main factors in my Board's consideration in the use of communication systems is cost. In the past the Board have rented a private omnibus circuit with fixed telephones at certain points. This year's cost of that system is a figure of £5,98169 and it is a figure which has been increasing steeply over the past few years, and no doubt will continue to increase in the future. Bearing this in mind my Board has decided to look at the modern communications systems that are available to departments of government on this Island now. The new system we have now tested and installed is cheaper than the previous arrangement and is more flexible, particularly in the winter period. Any public passenger carrying service must at all times have the safety and well-being of passengers and staff as priority, and this new communication system vastly enhances the safety factor and has the approval of the Inspector of Railways employed by our Board. The system was installed on a limited basis for a trial period at no cost to the Board, and has been found to be so satisfactory that we have now extended it to cover both railway systems. Another advantage of this system has been the improved utilisation of manpower and saving in the travelling time of staff; as members will no doubt understand, our railways operate to both ends of the Island and the movement of staff and materials can be costly items. It also allows for stricter controls of trams and trains which have the units installed in them and it

Manx Electric Railway—Radio and Telecommunication Services—Question Mr. Catlin. T946 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 is a major improvement to safety. No doubt the hon. member who asked the question has heard the slogan "Buy Manx." My Board and I believe this principle does not only apply to agricultural products and intend where possible to give the advantage of contract to local companies, particularly companies which are moving forward and progressing into telecommunication services which this Island desperately needs. I would be upset to think the hon. member did not agree with this principle and I am sure he does; I would like to make it clear that in our opinion this is the most economic and flexible system available and suitable for the Board's use. My Board intends to take full advantage of any technical advancements and we are fortunate that this contract has been placed with a Manx-based company who are the only operators of this type of system. Thank you, sir. Mr. Catlin: I wish to thank the hon. Chairman for his reply, Your Excellency.

Mr. Maddrell: A supplementary, Your Excellency: I have heard from the hon. Chairman that there are three tenders for radio telecommunications. I do not think, in my mind, there are three tenders for radio telecommunications. I think there are businesses conducted by these people but in the case of this radio communications circuit I do not think that specifications have been issued; I do not think that other people have had an opportunity in business in the Isle of Man to compete for that business. I do not think there are any fairy grandfathers or grandmothers in the Isle of Man that install the kind of equipment that has been installed both at the top of Snaefell . . .

Mr. Delaney: Is the hon. member asking a question or making a statement against the policy of my Board, Your Excellency?

Mr. Maddrell: I am stating a fact for an answer.

The Governor: Are you about to make a supplementary question?

Mr. Maddrell: I am stating a fact that will come to the question, sir. Could the Board Chairman, Your Excellency, state whether specifications were issued for radio and telecommunications, and were those specifications put out to tender, tenders secured and the best one selected?

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, in answer to the hon. member, who I am aware is involved and working for a British company in telecommunications who are involved in this business, at this moment in time I am not prepared to give that answer, sir, but I will certainly, if the hon. member is prepared to put a question down at the next sitting of Tynwald, give him a comprehensive answer, and also issue to him in con- fidence copies of the contracts and minutes of the Board which might suit the hon. member and give an answer to his question.

Mr. Maddrell: On a point of order, sir, I am not involved. I am only a workman in the Company I am in, I am not the head of a company so I am not involved.

Mr. Delaney: The hon. member has misquoted me, sir. I said he was employed by a company involved in this business.

Manx Electric Railway—Radio and Telecommunication Services—Question Mr. Callin. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T947

CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE—QUESTION BY MR. DELANEY.

The Governor: I think we will go on to question number 9. 1 call upon the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Board of Social Security:— When will the Work Permit Committee of your Board be making a report to this hon. Court?

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, the Board of Social Security has a statutory duty through the Control of Employment Committee, which is often referred to as the Work Permit Committee, to make a statement twice a year to Tynwald, this hon. Court, on employment. This in fact we did last month. Now from time to time we have equally made available to hon. members, by circulation, the details of the numbers of permits which we issue and have been in issue since the first day of June 1976 up until the current date, and also a monthly summary. I have both the current totals up-to-date and for the month of May available for the hon. member and in fact I will give them to the Clerk for circulation to the whole of the hon. Court. As far as I know there is no statutory duty or imposition in any respect on the Board of Social Security Work Permit Committee to make a report to this hon. Court, but as I have said we have made the figures available and I certainly will in this case. Now I think that possibly the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney, is interested in the progress of the legislation, and because there is no requirement to make a report I am quite happy to tell the hon. member the current situation. The situation is that in October last year, the Board of Social Security asked the Executive Council if they would con- sider the possibility of standardising the residential qualifications for all purposes in the Isle of Man. Consequent to that the Board has considered the Control of Employ- ment legislation itself, and we have made recommendations to Executive Council and have asked Executive Council if they would come forward with the legislation. Now, the hon. member will be aware that there are three methods of introducing legislation into the hon. House and the methods are either by Private Member's Bill, which has to have the leave of the House; as a result of a Select Committee making that recom- mendation in its report and the report having been accepted; or in fact by Executive Council's direction, and in fact we asked Executive Council, and Executive Council will very quickly be moving on this to bring it forward ending legislation to the House of Keys.

Mr. Delaney: I am grateful to the hon. Chairman for his reply and I would say to the hon. Chairman that he is correct in the means and method of my question to get to the point. In his own words, Your Excellency, in asking a supplementary question, I would ask: After the strong arguments put forward by hon members regarding the need for change in the Control of Employment Act, particularly at the October sitting last year and in the time that has elapsed since then, and the statement made by you in this Chamber last month where you state "The Committee's conclusions have been referred to the Board of Social Security who will in turn make recommendations to Executive Council", does he not consider there is a need for quick and urgent progress to bring forward your recommendations so this Court can debate what changes are necessary in the Control of Employment Act that directly affects the living standards

Control of Employment Committee—Question by Mr. Delaney. T948 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 and certainly the livelihood of so many people who have been on this Island for just less than the ten-year period? Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, we did say that in fact we would introduce amending legislation, and I am quite certain that no matter what amending legislation is introduced possibly members will wish to make further amendments to it. To this end my com- mittee did seek information from the general public and organisations on the Isle of Man; we have given what we consider the tidying amendments to the Executive Council and, as I say, I can only assume and hope that Executive Council will put amending legislation in front of the House of Keys as soon as possible. Mr. Delaney: One last supplementary, Your Excellency: the hon. Chairman gave me an understanding in this Court that he would personally ask me to come along, as this directly affects so many of my constituents, to give evidence to your committee. I am still awaiting a letter of invitation from you to come along to that said committee to discuss with you the Control of Employment Act. That was your invitation. Mr. Cringle: Well, Your Excellency, if in fact the hon. member has been missed out 1 will here and now apologise to the hon. member, but in fact every member of this hon. Court was circulated to give evidence, and in fact if memory is serving me right I think we had a reply from one hon. member of the House of Keys.

MANX AIRLINES — ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW COMPANY — QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER.

The Governor: Question number 10. I call on the hon. Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Airports Board:— Whereas recent press statements have indicated that BMA and Air UK will join together under the livery of "Manx Airlines". And whereas such a company will have to make fresh applications to the Civil Aviation Authority for the routes to the Island. Is your Board satisfied— (a) that the type of aircraft they operate is of a sufficiently high standard for a national airline; (b) that the financial ability of the new company is such that its operation will not result in a diminution of flights to and from the Island or in demands for financial assistance from this Government; and (c) that the Board of this new company will contain a sufficient number of independent Manx directors to safeguard the interests of Island residents? The President of the Council: Your Excellency, in answer to question (a), "Is the Board satisfied that the type of aircraft that they operate is of sufficient high standard for a national airline?" the Board is satisfied that the type of aircraft that will be operated by the new company, that is Fokker Friendships and Viscounts, are suitable aircraft to be operated by Manx Airlines, which incidentally is not a national airline in the strictest sense. When we speak of a national airline we speak of airlines in which the government of a country has a large stake. The Government has no stake at all in this and the Airports Board have made it abundantly clear in intending operators that the Board would not be prepared to recommend to Tynwald that they should be financially involved with the provision of capital for airlines to the Isle of Man, but

Manx Airlines—Establishment of New Company—Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T949

they are satisfied that the aircraft as suggested to be used on these routes are quite suitable. The second part of the question, regarding the financial ability: before the new company is granted a licence to operate the route the Civil Aviation Authority and the Board, under the Civil Aviation Act 1971 (Isle of Man) Order 1972, have to satisfy themselves that, the applicant is a fit person to operate aircraft under the authority of the licence with special regard to his and his employees' experience in the field of aviation, and where the applicant is a body corporate the experience in the field of aviation and the past activities generally of the person appearing to the Authority to control that body. The Board is presently considering his matter and the financial ability of the company to ensure that there will be no dilution in the number of passengers carried to and from the Island in the future. The Board has decided — and I want to repeat this — they have told the airline, and all airlines and all entrepreneurs that come along, that they would not be prepared to recommend that any financial assistance from the Government should be forthcoming. In answer to the last part of the question, the Board does anticipate that local directors will be appointed, but these local directors may be of a non-executive character and we believe that it is for the Isle of Man Air- ports Board to look after the interests of the Manx travelling public and the company invariably would look after the interests of the company and its viability, and we think the strength should come from the Board and it is not necessarily because there are local residents on a board of directors that you get any particular favours. It will be run on strictly business lines and we anticipate that the new Manx Airlines company that is set up may well provide the answer to many of our problems and we are asking who will be the directors of the new company, who will be its chairman and who will be its managing director, what financial arrangements have been made, to discharge the duties of this new company if it is granted the necessary licence, and then we ask about the type of aircraft and the frequency with which they will be used, the daily utilisation of the aircraft, who will be the company operational manager, the commercial manager and its chief pilot and brief details about the proposed reservations system and also the frequency of operations, both in the wintertime and the summertime; so we are having some very searching questions going out to the suggested new company. But I read with interest, Your Excellency, the leader in the Isle of Man "Weekly Times" about this particular question and its future, and I would say that there are many people in the Isle of Man that would like the Isle of Man people to have a greater say in the running of the airlines to and from the Island, but invariably all of those people too, say, "We would like to have a say in it but we are not prepared to put any money in it, so we say: let the people who run the airline run the airline and it is up to the Isle of Man Airports Board, in discussion with them, to see that they put on a proper service. Here I did elucidate my answer when I said the Board anticipated that local directors will be appointed, and I elucidated the point to safeguard the Island's residents, because it does not automatically follow that because you have some people that are resident in the Isle of Man that they are going to safeguard the interests of the Isle of Man; their prime duty is to safeguard the interests of the company. It is for the Board to look after the interests of the Isle of Man, and I would say that in the past both with British Midland Airways and with Air UK, the Board have had frequent meetings, and they do fall in with many suggestions that are put forward by the Board; and we are very grateful for the very full service that both of these companies have given over the years, in times when the traffic does really not justify such a service.

Manx Airlines—Establishment of New Company—Question by the Speaker. T950 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

The Speaker: Your Excellency, a supplementary: Does this proposed airline possess an air operation certificate at the present time and does the Board's stance of December 1981 conveyed in a letter to the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to monopoly operation still hold good? By that I mean that the Board informed the Civil Aviation Authority it was of the opinion that only services on lifeline routes should be protected. Is it now your policy or going to be your policy that, with the creation of this monopoly operation, services other than those you describe as lifeline routes will no longer be subjected to competition? The President of the Council: Your Excellency, on the first point which the hon. Mr. Speaker mentioned, as far as the certificate and so forth is concerned, whereas this new company which has not yet been formed may not possess such a certificate, I have no doubt in my mind with the set-up they will have and the experienced people they will have associated with them, no difficulty would be experienced in the obtaining of the necessary certificate in this respect. On the question of monopoly and the question of the lifeline routes, a paper was issued by the Civil Aviation Authority regarding life- line routes and the protection of those routes to prevent other operators operating on the same routes; this was a paper for discussion and even the Civil Aviation Authority have not come down firmly, and certainly not the Isle of Man Airports Board, on this particular policy. We do, however, say that it is most unfair if you allow other operators to operate on a route which has been satisfactorily served by an existing company and one who has proved to be satisfactory. That will not eliminate the possibility of other operators coming in on routes which are not served by this major company or are not served in a satisfactory manner, and if the Board finds that these routes are not served in a satisfactory manner there would be nothing to prevent them, if an application was forthcoming from another company, recommending to the Civil Aviation Authority that this licence should be granted, and I think this is the policy which the Board will be adopting, has adopted in the past and will adopt in the future.

The Speaker: A supplementary with your Excellency's permission? As you are now aware that the Blackpool/Isle of Man route is unsatisfactory, would your Board with- draw its opposition to Spacegrand operating on that route, especially as that company have the full support of Blackpool Corporation and the travel trade?

The President of the Council: This is a matter, Your Excellency, which is sub judice and I would prefer not to comment on this matter; the licence matter is now being heard by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is true that the Isle of Man Airports Board did not offer support to Spacegrand originally.

Mr. MacDonald: Who are they?

The President of the Council: They are a company operating out of Blackpool with Chieftain aeroplanes. They have said that they would get larger aircraft if and when the business did improve; and here I must repeat that the operation of the Friendship aeroplane to and from Blackpool was preferable — because we were putting that route in jeopardy — to the possible frequent running of the smaller type of aeroplane but I do not want to say anything detrimental to Spacegrand or to any of these small airlines. We have had very friendly conversations with them, and we would wish them well in their operations, but we look upon it that we hold no brief for any particular airline

Manx Airlines—Establishment of New Company—Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T951

but we have to come down on the side of whom we think would be better for the travelling public to and from the Island. Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, could I just ask a brief supplementary? We have heard a lot of valid complaints this morning about Air UK, and I would like to ask the hon. President of the Council: Have they got a complaints officer, because they need one by the sound of it? The President of the Council: I have no doubt that sometimes the complaints make probably more noise than the satisfied customer. Every complaint is given a thorough examination and I have before me here the report of the duty officer which seemed to set off this particular incident, and they do deal with it in a very satisfactory manner. It gives them no pleasure when the customer is not satisfied, and they do everything they can to see that future passengers are catered for as well as they can be, but they cannot always cater for bad weather. The Speaker: Your Excellency, can we have the assurance then that monopoly ill not receive the full support of the Airports Board who are prepared to consider the operation of such people as Dan Air, Spacegrand, Lease Air, Logan Air, and will consider their applications without bias, and at the same time an assurance from the Chairman that there will be no financial support for this new company? The President of the Council: As far as the financial support is concerned, we have spelt that out loud and clear to them. We also support the Dan Air application, which is a weekend operation in the summertime, coming from ports which are not otherwise served, and we support Logan Air, they come in from Prestwick. We do also have certain other applications from Avair, Casair and Spacegrand, these are operators that have small types of aircraft and we do consider each one on its merits and in fact some of the minor licences have been granted. There will be no out-and-out monopoly of services to and from the Island but we believe that major routes should be in the hands of a company that is capable by virtue of provision of aircraft, provision of finance, staff and experience; we believe that the major routes should be in the hands of people who have all those qualifications.

MANX RADIO — NEWS AND COVERAGE — QUESTION BY MR. LOWEY. The Governor: Question number 11. 1 call on the hon. member for Rushen Mr. Lowey. Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board:— (1) In view of the annual subsidy or deficiency payment made by the Isle of Man Government to Manx Radio, what is your Board's policy regarding the expansion of the news service to convey extensive coverage of regional news relating to Wales and the Fylde Coast? (2) What financial support is being received from those areas in respect of Manx Radio's coverage of events in those regions? (3) Is your Board aware of the widespread public concern at the apparent bias in the presentation of items relating to those areas which appear to be treated more favourably than items relating to the Isle of Man? Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, before dealing specifically with the three parts of the hon. member's question, I would like to make some general comments about my

Manx Radio—News and Coverage—Question by Mr. Lowey. T952 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Board's involvement with Manx Radio. Manx Radio is not operated, of course, by the Home Affairs Board. It is operated by Radio Manx Limited, a private limited company with independent directors under an agreement dated 1st April 1980, made between the Broadcasting Commission and the company, as a result of a resolution passed by this hon. Court on 15th May 1979; under the agreement the operation of the Manx Radio Company was subject to such provision as to the transmission power and frequencies as may be laid down by my Board, and the company must broadcast programmes for a period of not less than 70 hours per week unless otherwise agreed. In other respects the company itself is responsible for deciding the station's policy in respect of pro- gramme content, including news, current affairs, features, music, et cetera, but it must comply with the provisions of section 3(2) of the Broadcasting Commission Act 1965, which deals with matters of good taste, decency, accuracy and impartiality. The financial contribution which the Government makes to the operation of Manx Radio is negotiated between the company and the Finance Board and does not involve my Board. In short, apart from a general supervisory role my Board has no involvement in the day-to-day running of Manx Radio or has any power over the station's policy. To turn to the specific question posed by the hon. member, news items from North Wales and the Fylde coast are now intermingled with local news items in what may be called a regional news programme. These arise from a deliberate policy of the company to develop Manx Radio into a station based in the Isle of Man but serving the Irish Sea coast area. The expansion of the news service to include such items from the areas mentioned is a recent innovation and has not been discussed with my Board. The policy to broadcast generally into these areas has been discussed and has, of course, the full support of my Board. Indeed, I think it was at the request of the previous Broadcasting Commission that it should be developed in that way. Manx Radio is, I think, trying to explore the potential market in the United Kingdom. Of course no direct financial support is received from the mainland areas in respect of Manx Radio coverage. In the event of these regions becoming in the long term attractive in relation to revenue-earning, advertisers in the United Kingdom using the media, this could of course prove profitable if services built up in that area. It is estimated that Manx Radio has a potential audience of 850,000 listeners along the Irish and Welsh coasts and the north-west of England, and it is in an attempt to attract more advertising from these areas that this policy has been adopted in order to make Manx Radio a profit-making concern. There is no way apparently, in which Manx Radio — unfortunately in my point of view — is going to become profitable if restricted to operating within the Island itself. I hope there is not a bias in the presentation of news items in favour of areas other than the Isle of Man. I would regret that very much and I certainly hope not. I have not maybe had as much time to listen to it recently as I would wish but I was not aware, only from what the hon. member has expressed to me, of any disquiet along this area. I personally regret that it is financially necessary for the policy to be diverted along this line because I think in a sense it will lose its identity as a Manx radio, and it is giving the impression that the Isle of Man may be just part of the north-west region rather than an individual entity and a nation on its own. This is regrettable, but I can see the directors' reasons for trying to develop the business end along the lines which they are attempting to do.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, would the Chairman not agree that the imprint of Radio Luxembourg that is quite apparent in the programmes of Manx Radio nowadays plus the tenor of his reply is not to local taste, and is the Chairman of the Home Affairs

Manx Radio—News and Coverage—Question by Mr. Lowey. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T953

Board and his Broadcasting Committee satisfied that the policy guidelines of his com- mission are adequately served by the present arrangements with Radio Manx Limited, and was the committee aware of the changes in policy which he has enumerated this morning prior to their implementation? He says that no income is derived by Manx Radio from these regions whose news is included in the regional news, which I see has spread to regional weather forecasts, but there surely must be a cost factor in supplying that news and disseminating it, and therefore is it not reasonable to assume that the Manx taxpayer is picking up the tabs in the short term, and no doubt in the directors' long-term view of the station, to reap new income? Is it desirable that a local, national radio station should go, if you like, away from its initial brief and go into a regional set-up without the consent and knowledge of the Broadcasting Commission of the Isle of Man?

Mr. J. J. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, a supplementary? In view of the hon. Chair- man's apparent statement of his Board's non-involvement in Manx Radio, to whom should hon. members address Tynwald questions in future?

Mr. Anderson: Answering the hon. member's question first of all, it was this Court, of which the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was a member, which was a party to the arrangement whereby we assigned to the directors of Manx Radio the authority to broadcast as they sought fit. We are still, as was in fact the previous committee, only responsible for it in relation to those areas that I have dealt with: in relation to decency, impartiality, et cetera. I do not think there is any other source other than as far as the financial aspect is concerned possibly the Finance Board - they are the people who actually provide the finance, and I am not sure at what level that is running. Now I did hope to try to explain to the hon. member that as far as these items were concerned we were not consulted over the matter, and according to the lease there is no necessity for the directors of Manx Radio to consult with us over this matter. As far as deriving financial benefit from it, when I said that there was no financial benefit, I meant by that that the local authorities in those areas, unlike the Manx Exchequer, would not be making a contribution. There are certainly some people who are advertising with Manx Radio and from those people they will be deriving some benefit. I know this may be limited for the moment but I think it is a situation that you have to face up to; if you are going to say that this is going to be a Manx station and Manx station alone then you have got to face up to the position that you are going to indefinitely have the Manx taxpayer subsidise and retain it as such, so you have got a choice and there is certainly a conflict of interest. If you are going to have a regional station — and, Your Excellency, I might go back to the original idea of a radio in the Isle of Man, when the late hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Colebourn, brought it to this Court, the idea was that it would not be a Manx station but a Luxem- bourg type of station with a very vast area to cover and by that coverage give publicity to the Isle of Man. Unfortunately that sort of licence was never forthcoming and that sort of opportunity never came forward, so we were stuck with a limited amount of power with which to broadcast. So, Your Excellency, it has been the decision of this Court to hand it over to a commercial company so that we would not go to the position where we would be approaching £1 million in money that was being given in order to subsidise this station, so it is up to the directors of this company who were given the task and the responsibility of trying at least to break even to attempt to go outside the

Manx Radio—News and Coverage—Question by Mr. Lowey. T954 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 area, and I personally regret it but I can see and understand completely the reason for it, and I do not think I can answer the hon. member' other than that. Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, can I say I am totally dissatisfied with the reply given by the hon. Chairman. Would he not agree that with regard to the answer he has given to this Court the change of policy by the directors of Radio Manx is not subject to anybody's scrutiny, is not that which was agreed by this Court? I, as a member of this Court, was of the opinion that the Broadcasting Commission which is now a committee of the Home Affairs Board was in overall charge of policy of the station and would the Chairman not agree — if I could come to what I would call local matters — that when the station itself, for example, changes the obituary times, something as simple and basic as that, from a time when local people can hear them to times which suit the program- mers, this is totally unsatisfactory? And also —I mentioned news in my original question, but as the hon. Chairman referred to publicity for the Isle of Man — could I say that as for the "Down Your Way" type of programmes emanating from the station actively encouraging prospective visitors to visit competitors of the Isle of Man, a Canadian journalist who was here last week and listened to the station said, "Is it not about time this station put its act together"— forgive me if I have not put it in a Canadian accent "and stopped scoring own goals?" The Governor: Hon. members, I believe quite a few people want to ask supple- mentary questions; we do not want to start a debate on this subject . . . Members: Hear, hear. The Governor: And I would draw your attention to Standing Orders: "Any member may put a supplementary question for the purpose of elucidating any matter of fact arising out of the oral answer already given." Who wishes to ask a supplementary question? Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, just a question relating to what has been said: Is it the policy of the directors for Manx Radio to become a regional station of the north- west? If so, would it not be better for them to go to the British Broadcasting Company where the Manx taxpayer pays a television licence and get the British Broadcasting Company to provide a service free as they do in the rest of the north-west?

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, perhaps I am on very dodgy ground, but I will chance it anyway! Is the hon. Chairman able to tell me if the advertisers of Cuticura and Ayds pay Manx Radio the princely sum of 90 pence per spot, and if he is able to give me that assurance can he tell me if the same sort of very preferential rates are available to the Tourist Board to advertise the holiday industry in the Isle of Man?

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, would the hon. Chairman of the Home Affairs Board confirm that it was the Manx Government that negotiated the increase in transmission power up to ten kilowatts, firstly to provide a good service within the Isle of Man but, secondly, to allow a service to the fringe areas of the Irish Sea, and to allow the directors of the company that run the station to maximise on the commercial aspects of that situation? In fact, if the directors were not censoring their programmes in such a way as to be interesting to all the people in the fringe areas of the Irish Sea they would not in fact be doing their job properly, and they must, I would suggest—and I hope the

Manx Radio—News and Coverage--Question by Mr. Lowey. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T955

Chairman would agree — maximise their income from commercial sources which necessarily include those sources from outside the Isle of Man. The President of the Council: Your Excellency, arising out of the answer which the hon. Chairman of the Home Affairs Board gave when he seemed to indicate that the Home Affairs Board would have no control over the policy of the Manx Radio, is the Chairman aware that many people thought that some of the advertisements in connection with certain motor-cycles were a bit distasteful, and if they hold that view whom would they approach with this particular observation? Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, to answer the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, if they were in bad taste, our Board would certainly be the one to whom they would appeal. We have not had any contacts as far as that has been concerned, none whatever. I thank the hon. member for Rushen for raising this point because it is absolutely correct that all the way along, as long as I have been a member of this Court, we have been seeking for increased power so that we could broadcast into these areas and far beyond. This has been the policy of this Court for a very long time and the only way I suppose we are going to get interest in that area is actually not just because Mr. So-and-so of Onchan has lost a cat but because there is something in those areas which is going to be of interest to them. It appears that there are programmes — I am afraid I have just not got the listening time that some hon. members appear to have — nor, in answer to the hon. member for Middle, am I aware of what the advertisement for this terrible slimming thing cost — perhaps I could do with them myself! Nor am I aware of what the cost is to advertise anything on Manx Radio; that is not part of our brief whatever. It does not have anything to do with us; our brief is to maintain a standard as far as decency and impartiality are concerned, and we are always fighting to try and get them to be as impartial as we can. We have a lot of arguments with them over many things; we have discussed things over which probably we have no control but hope that we can have some influence. I can appreciate the hon. member's point of view in a sense of feeling some disquiet because my own point, as 1 reiterate, is that we are losing our original Manx identity, but on the other hand there is a conflict of interest about going to get the advertising that is necessary to make this a commercial proposition. Mr. Crellin: Do you think perhaps the hon. member who has sat clown could answer the hon. member for Castletown. sir?

The Governor: Would the hon. member like to repeat the question?

Mr. Brown: The question was, Your Excellency: Is it the policy of the directors to make Manx Radio into a regional station and, if that is the case, for the north-west ...

Dr. Mann: A Manx regional station.

Mr. Brown: No, a regional station, I said, and if that was the case would it not be better to negotiate with the British Broadcasting Company to whom we all pay a tele- vision licence and get service free of charge to the Isle of Man for a regional station as they do throughout the north-west?

Mr. Anderson: This is a financial matter which I have not had an opportunity to look into, and I would require notice of the question. I think it is a regional station, as

Manx Radio—News and Coverage—Question by Mr. Lowey. T956 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

I understand it, based on the Isle of Man but hoping to give the Isle of Man publicity and, I certainly would hope, good publicity, Your Excellency.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, in the light of the hon. Chairman's answer, could he give this hon. Court an undertaking that in order for Manx Radio to remain Manx the Manx national news should be separated from the regional news, because that is the one point which is deliberately putting the Isle of Man Manx Radio into a region?

Mr. Lowey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Anderson: I will certainly make that request, Your Excellency, I would certainly prefer that myself.

Mr. Lowey: I would like to thank the hon. Chairman, Your Excellency, for putting up with rather a long barrage of supplementaries.

SEPTEMBER CAR RALLY — QUESTION BY MR. CRINGLE.

The Governor: We will now change the frequency and turn to Question 12. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man High- way and Transport Board:— Have all negotiations for road use during the September car rally been completed? If they have — (1) What is the additional mileage allowed? (2) How many areas are subjected to multiple closure over the three-day event? (3) Does your Board consider that six closures on the one road over the three days are justified? (4) What opportunity has the general public to pass comment on the requested road closures?

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, the reply to the introduction to this four-part question. is in the affirmative, such negotiations referred to having been protracted over several months, and having indeed involved consultations with Manx Autosport, the police and the Board of Education and National Transport. I am sure that the hon. questioner may recall that one of his last functions when the Highway and Transport Board was fortunate enough to be enjoying his services as a member was to approve in principle the initial request that the promoters stage the 1982 Rally over three days with eight sections being delineated; it is a fact, however, that the hon. member is not now a member of the Highway and Transport Board and was not there when the details of the road closing application were dealt with. The answers to the subsequent questions posed are, Your Excellency, that the total length of roads to be closed over a three-day period is 40091 miles. This is an increase of 8326 miles over that of the 1981 event. To put this into perspective: 13354 miles will be closed on the Thursday, 141.52 miles on the Friday and 12585 on the Saturday. The second part of the question: the route of the Rally will comprise 46 stages over 14 different sections and the usage of these sections will be: three sections on six occasions; three sections on four occasions; two sections on three occasions; four sections on two occasions and two sections on one occasion. It is worth emphasising that no section will be used on more than two occasions in any one day with a maximum possible period of closure of 3.1- hours for each section. Now these closures will undoubtedly get shorter as the Rally progresses

September Car Rally—Question by Mr. Cringle. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T957 owing to the number of starters being reduced through wear and tear or total abuse - whatever your view is— as the Rally goes on, and also it is worth pointing out that there will be at least a one-hour period, in some cases more, between all road closure periods. Part 3 of the question, Your Excellency: in the opinion of the present Highway and Transport Board the September Rally is currently an event now second in impor- tance to the Tourist Trophy Races only in benefiting the tourist industry, and this is the primary purpose, of course, for which road race orders are made. This particular event has grown in stature over the years and it is the aim of the promoters to endeavour to obtain a higher status, from its present grade 2 to grade 3, and thereby attract more European entries. Now one of the criteria for this higher status necessitates increased mileage, which is only possible by running the event over three days and through more utilisation of minor roads through the more sparsely populated areas. This change in format spreads the event, of course, over a longer period with attendant benefits for tourism from longer staying spectators. The benefit of this event is that the end of the tourist season could well become in time as significant as the Tourist Trophy is to its commencement and the present Board certainly considers its decision to approve the road closures justified in the interests of the Island as a whole. It is worth pointing out that some persons living on the Rally route could be shut in for a maximum period of 21 hours over the total time of that Rally, seven hours for each of the three days, but remember, Your Excellency and hon. members, that the members of the public residing on the Tourist Trophy course would be unable to obtain access to their premises for over 90 hours each year, 51 hours or possibly more for the Tourist Trophy, 38 or possibly more for the Manx Grand Prix, and a little four-hour session for the bicycle Tourist Trophy, so other people suffer inconvenience as well. And as for the fourth part of the question, the public is not given the opportunity to pass comment on requested road closures, as the Board is fully cognisant with the considerable inconvenience caused by the closure of public roads, not only for this Rally but indeed for all other events. As the questioner well knows, the Board spends a considerable amount of time in considering most carefully each individual stage that the promoters ask for and the possible inconvenience to be caused; as I say, this factor is taken into consideration when determining how an application for a road closing order will be treated. Addi- tionally, in appropriate areas the views of the local authority where an event is being staged is sought. Specifically regarding the September Rally, all complaints made to the Board—and there are not many— are taken into consideration prior to determining the route for the next year's event. It is unfortunate but nevertheless true that every road closing order causes inconvenience to some people, but they in the main give it their cheerful forbearance. If the Island is to continue with its long tradition of catering for motor sports I am afraid that this is the price that has got to be paid to reap the benefits, which are considerable. Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I thank the hon. Chairman for his reply and I am very much aware of the importance of the September car rally. However, would the hon. Chairman give an undertaking that prior to the September 1983 event he will seriously consider, if it is held over three days, that some people are inconvenienced for three consecutive days for the maximum period. I am aware that he has commented that the rally periods will get shorter, but unless a person happens to attend at the end of a section to find whether or not that road is open, if he is in the middle of a section he has no knowledge until the allotted hour as to whether or not he can drive through

September Car Rally—Question by Mr. Cringle. T958 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 his gateway onto the road; he cannot safely do so unless he attends at the end of each section, it is that fact which makes, in my opinion, six closures on the one road for the three-day period rather unfortunate.

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I do not know what sort of an undertaking I am expected to give there but we will have a look, as we always do, before the 1983 events.

INDUSTRIAL GASES — TRANSPORT COSTS AND PRODUCTION — QUESTION BY THE SPEAKER.

The Governor: Hon. members, question number 13; owing to a throat ailment the hon. member of Council, Mr. Kerruish, has my leave to read the Chairman of the Water and Gas Authority's reply, and the hon. and learned member will reserve his vocal strength for supplementaries.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Water and Gas Authority:— Whereas the cost of cylinders of oxygen (£3.60) and acetylene (£16) are outweighed by the cost of shipping and handling from the production plant (£23). Will your Board, in the interests of the industrial consumer, consider either — (a) the negotia- tion of a more appropriate rate for transport; or (b) the establishment of a plant in the isle of Man to produce those gases in greatest demand?

Mr. Kerruish: Your Excellency, here is Mr. Simcock's reply to question number 13 tabled by the hon. Mr. Speaker: "Before answering this question I would like to point out the fact that the preamble to it does appear to misrepresent the position. It is true that Mr. Speaker recently received an account from the Authority in which the oxygen in a cylinder was charged at £3.60 and the acetylene in a cylinder at £16. The account also included an item: of £23 for carriage, shipping, handling, et cetera. This £23, how- ever, was for two cylinders and not for each cylinder as the preamble to Mr. Speaker's question might suggest. The question of carriage of industrial gases has been a subject of prolonged negotiation and difficulty to my Authority ever since the oxygen plant at Ramsey was handed over to the Harbour Board. The amount involved represents the cost of transporting a full cylinder from the factory to Liverpool, ship- ping it to Douglas and then transporting it to the Authority's headquarters, and then going through the whole procedure in reverse when returning the empty cylinder. The present price of £11.40 per cylinder is the cheapest at which the operation can be carried out. As for the question of producing gases on the Island, the existing oxygen plant is a one-off design, and if it were to be used continuously it would be impossible to produce spare parts as wear occurred. This is why the oxygen plant is sustained for emergency purposes only. If a new plant capable of continuous use was built, with spare parts available, the servicing of the capital cost would be greater than the present cost of carriage. As for the production of acetylene on the Island, this is a very dangerous process and would involve very considerable safety precautions, again at a very high cost. For the record, we sell about 2,500 cylinders of oxygen and only 700 cylinders of acetylene a year."

Industrial Gases—Transport Costs and Production—Question by the Speaker. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T959

The Speaker: Your Excellency, if I could ask if the hon. gentleman who has answered that question is aware of the reaction of the Chairman of the Industrial Advisory Council to the situation which gives us gas in the Isle of Man at double the cost it is available in the United Kingdom, a situation which also involves shipment of a trailer of gas cylinders to the Isle of Man at a cost of £900 return for that one shipment, and would he be of the opinion that the Chairman of the Industrial Advisory Council might be perturbed by the implication of these charges? Mr. Simcocks: I think the Court ought to recall that the existence of the oxygen plant arose out of a recommendation of the Seamen's Strike Committee of which the hon. Mr. Speaker was Chairman in 1966. The idea was that if we had an oxygen plant we could be immune from the effects of a seamens' strike, indeed that was the basis of the fact that we carry three months' supply of oil in our power stations. Now when the plant was built as a recommendation of the Seamen's Strike Committee it was, as I said in my original question, a one-off design, and when we got it from the Harbour Board it was in a fairly advanced state of wear and we found to our horror that spare parts were not available and if the machine broke down individual parts had to be manu- factured. This meant that so far as producing oxygen for the Isle of Man was concerned the plant was not suitable. We then decided to mothball it so it could be available if an emergency arose and we in fact run it once a month just to check it is in working order but it is essentially a plant for emergency purposes, and I believe myself that the quantities involved are such that it would be quite uneconomical, and I am quite certain that the hon. and learned Chairman of the Finance Board would tread very heavily on any scheme by me to install either an oxygen plant or an acetylene plant. As for the availability of cylinders on trailers I have no knowledge of that any more than I have knowledge of the opinion of the Chairman of the Board of Industry, sir. Mr. MacDonald: Could I ask a quick supplementary to which I would only expect the answer yes or no, Your Excellency? Is it not a fact—I think the Chairman will agree here — that this so-called oxygen plant was designed to produce oxygen for use for industrial purposes but no-one considered what happened to the acetylene that went with it, so we were in a position of having built a one-off oxygen plant which could not be used for hospital purposes — it was not sufficiently pure; we were told at the time it was the only type of small plant you could possibly get unless you were going into what in those days was a vast sum of money, and we ended up with a plant producing oxygen but we still had to import the acetylene, so it was a strategic nonsense. Without the acetylene the industry could not work but we still had the oxygen plant. However, we kept it going for quite some time and then we realised what were we, the Harbour Board — I took this over when I took over the Harbour Board — what were we doing, under our terms of reference, playing about with oxygen plants? So, we decided to hand it over to what was called the Water and Gas Authority; they agreed in the end and they took it over but they were left in exactly the same position. Mr. Simcocks: Actually, it was not exactly the same position because, you see, in an emergency as long as you have oxygen you can make do with propane or butane gas as a substitution for acetylene, and therefore whilst I agree that at first sight it appeared to be a nonsense, in fact in times of real emergency it was logical to hand over the oxygen plant to the Gas Authority because we did have stocks of butane and propane which could be used in substitution for acetylene.

Industrial Gases—Transport Costs and Production—Question by the Speaker. T960 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15. 1982

THE "PLAYDIUM" — QUESTION BY MR. CALLIN. The Governor: Question number 14. The hon. member for Middle, Mr. Call in. Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board:— What steps can your Board take to ensure that the present unsightly state of the "Playdium" on Douglas Head, a popular tourist area, is remedied without delay? Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, so far as statutory powers are concerned the Board is able under the Local Government Act 1963 to call upon a local authority for a special report on the manner in which it is carrying out any powers conferred upon it, so a report could be sought from the Douglas Corporation on the provision and maintenance of the Playdium. In addition there may be, in a case such as this, scope to use the general powers under sections 417 of the Local Government Consolidation Act 1960 whereby if the Board is satisfied after due enquiry that a local authority is in default of a statutory duty an order can be made limiting the time of the performance of the duty. However, neither statutory power if thought appropriate could be invoked in such a way as to ensure remedial action with the speed sought by the hon. member. Apart from statutory powers the Board would be able to make representations to the Cor- poration for immediate improvement of the premises, but in so doing the Board is in no different position to any other agency of Government interested in the appearance of premises areas visited by tourists. I am aware, Your Excellency, that that is not a very satisfactory answer for the hon. member, and I would tell him that I have spoken personally to the Corporation and that I am assured by them of their awareness and concern of the problem. Legal difficulties concerning their tenancies of the building and an assurance claim have arisen and need to be solved before rectifying action can be taken, so the decision has yet to be made whether to demolish or refurbish. Mr. Catlin: A supplementary, Your Excellency: The hon. member mentioned that the Douglas Corporation were concerned, but would he not agree that there is quite a lot that could be done to improve the outside appearance of this building, without getting involved to any great extent financially? Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. member that the appearance of the building is unsatisfactory and, as I said, sir, I am assured by the Corporation of their concern and of the difficulties that they find themselves in with the legal wrangles that are taking place at the moment, and I can only trust that they are doing their very best to get the place in order as soon as possible. Mr. Catlin: I thank the hon. Chairman for his reply, Your Excellency.

CHILD DAY CARE NURSERIES — QUESTION BY MR. QUINNEY. The Governor: Question number 15, the hon. member for North Douglas. Mr. Quinney. Mr. Quinney: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education:— Is your Board in a position to report on its consideration of the pro- vision of Child Day Care Nurseries in appropriate locations throughout the Island in accordance with the Resolution of Tynwald on 14th October 1981 (T179)? Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, as was pointed out by the previous Chairman of the Board of Education the Children's Committee of the Board had this problem under

The "Playdium"—Question by Mr. Callin. — Child Day Care Nurseries—Question by Mr. Quinney. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T961

consideration long before the resolution of last October, and she spelt out very clearly what the duties of the Board were under existing legislation. Mrs. Hanson made it clear that although Tynwald should receive the declaratory resolution with sympathy the Board of Education must approach the problem with caution, and that is what is happening. A pre-school assessment unit has been in operation at Anagh Coar for some years now, and the Children's Committee and the Primary Education Committee have been considering the special needs of the Jurby area and have received agreement in principle from the Finance Executive Committee of the Board for the setting up of a day centre at Jurby for needy families, the intention being to monitor the progress before considering the wider application of day centres as a whole. The aim of the centre is to reduce the risk of having at a later stage to bring the children into care. Since the centre would eventually be financed from the preventive vote of the Children's Committee it would operate for the benefit of children at risk and not as a general provision for all parents who may wish to go out to work. The Finance and Executive Committee asked the Children's Committee to provide details of how the scheme would operate. This proved difficult; the committee found it hard to predict exactly how the centre would develop, how much support it would have from parents and what kind of service they would need. It would not be possible to estimate the cost of the service since the only pattern available in England which they could follow was that for facilities opera- ting in densely populated urban areas. The deliberations of the Children's Committee coincide with those of the Primary Committee and the Special Services Committee. The Primary Committee wanted to make Jurby a special case for nursery education and the Special Services Committee wanted to establish a pre-school assessment group in the north of the Island similar to that operating at Anagh Coar at present. Consequently it was decided to start with a small scheme at Jurby which would meet in part the needs of all three committees. The Finance and Executive Committee have agreed to operate a nursery class at the school on five mornings a week, starting in September. The class would be staffed by a teacher and a nursery assistant. This would be a focal point for parents and would give the Board an opportunity to spot at an early date families with problems. The nursery class would form the starting point for the day centre since a child care officer currently on the staff of the Board would be allocated to the group for one morning per week; also invited to attend if required would be the health visitor and any other worker whose presence would be helpful. There would then be a team approach to the problems that will arise, and over the course of time a better indication would be got of the type of provision that should be made. An assessment centre along the lines operated at Anagh Coar would be set up and initially on a part-time basis, using the staff already employed by the Board, that is, nursery teacher, remedial staff, School Medical Officer and Educational Psychologist. All the people working at Jurby including the staff of the school would be involved in the project and the headmaster will perform a leading role. In this way the Board hope to be in a better position to assess the true needs of families whose children are at risk and to come to more concrete proposals concerning day centres generally. Of course, what can ultimately be achieved would depend upon the amount of financial aid that can be allocated after taking into consideration the claims of all departments of Government.

Mr. Brown: A supplementary, Your Excellency: The hon. member, the Chairman of the Board of Education, has referred to Anagh Coar and Jurby. Is there any survey being done by the Authority of the whole Island as this is a problem for the Isle of

Child Day Care Nurseries—Question by Mr. Quinney. T962 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Man? And also he has talked constantly about the problem children; I believe that it is not a point of waiting until we have problem children but trying to stop the problem being caused, and there are one-parent families who have no choice whatsoever but to go out to work and have serious problems as to where their children are to be cared for, and I wonder is this in the mind of the Education Authority and if so, how long are people in the Isle of Manl going to have to wait until something is done about it? I think the main one, Your Excellency, is whether a survey is going to be done of the whole Island.

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, we are at the moment operating Jurby as a pilot scheme and I would stress again the point that was made by the previous Chairman of the Board, and I would read from the remarks she made on the 14th October. First of all she pointed out that section 35 of the 1949 Education Act specified the duties of the Board in respect of nursery education, but since what is now being considered is the need to place children in safety while parents are out at work, this will not cover the situation; and then she pointed out that section 1 of the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act provided, "It shall be the duty of the Board to make available such advice, guidance and assistance as may promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care," and she went on further to say that a family may be poor and the mother needs to go out to work but this in itself is not a factor that would justify action by the Board; the poverty or the action of the mother must lead to neglect of the child before the Board can help. It is not the duty of the Board at the moment under any existing legislation for us to provide day care centres for all parents who wish, through need or desire, to go out to work and until we have looked at the problem from our pilot schemes it is no good anybody anticipating what we can do in the future. We are certainly looking at the areas throughout the Island and if there are specific areas where we feel the need arises in other areas — and we have already established Anagh Coar and Jurby as being two such areas — then we will certainly consider the setting up of similar provision as we are doing now. It would be foolish of me to try and anticipate the outcome of the deliberations at the moment, because if we expanded this matter too far in our thinking and planning the costs could be absolutely fantastic and, as I say, nobody is looking for another department of education that is going to create a terrific amount of expenditure if it is not really necessary, and until we can find out the situation from our pilot schemes, looking at every area where we feel that there is a specific need then, it is no good our predicting what can happen in the future.

Mr. Quinney: Your Excellency, would not the hon. Chairman of the Board of Education agree that in the adjacent island there are provisions for child day care nurseries which cover the whole aspect of this situation? There is a need for child care day nurseries. I do not want to make a speech, Your Excellency, but the one-parent family is in danger of becoming a responsibility in the end of the Board of Education. We have heard him say there are pilot schemes. I thank him for that, I am glad to know that something is being done since the matter was raised not last October but a year last October. However, I hope that they will proceed a little bit further but also look at this other aspect of provision of child day care nurseries which may not be covered by the Act.

Child Day Care Nurseries—Question by Mr. Quinney. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T963

PROCEDURAL. The Governor: Hon. members, I say this in the spirit of "if the cap fits, wear it", but I do recommend that certain members might enjoy a bit of holiday reading and I am referring to Standing Orders 32 to 35, particularly on supplementaries. I say this, not only because they are rules made by members for members but I believe that if supplementary rules are abused it is a formula for vagueness and supposition rather than obtaining authoritative fact and information which is the object of questions. "If the cap fits, wear it."

FORESTRY, MINES AND LANDS BOARD — HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES — QUESTION BY DR. MOORE. The Governor: Question number 16 is for written answer. Question:— The hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore, to ask the Chairman of the Forestry, Mines and Lands Board:— Will you please give full details (including brand names) of all chemicals used or distributed by your Board or its agents for weed or pest control? Answer:—The following chemicals are used or distributed by the Board, its agents or servants for weed or pest control:—

Chemical Trade Name Use Triclopyr Garlon 4 E Herbicide Simazine Simazine Herbicide Dimethroate Systemic insecticide Thiophanate-Methyl Systemic fungicide Dichlorothio Benzamide Prefix Herbicide Glyphosate Round-up Herbicide Propyzamide Clanex Herbicide Paraquat Grammoxone and Clean Sweep Herbicide 2,4-D Silvapron Herbicide Ammonium Sulphamate Amcide Herbicide Dazomet Basimid Soil sterilant Nitrite Agrico Cut stump treatment Cyanide Powder Cymag Rabbit control

HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORT BOARD — HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES — QUESTION BY DR. MOORE. The Governor: Question number 17 is for written answer. Question:— The hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore, to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board:— Will you please give full details (including brand names) of all chemicals used or distributed by your Board or its agents for weed or pest control?

Procedural. — Forestry, Mines and Lands Board—Herbicides and Pesticides—Question by Dr. Moore. — Highway and Transport Board—Herbicides and Pesticides—Question by Dr. Moore. T964 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Answer:— Most weed spraying carried out by the Highway Board is done with a product known as "Atlavar" produced by Chipman Chemicals. This material is an approved product under the Agricultural Chemicals Approved Scheme and is included in the 1981 list agreed between the United Kingdom, Channel Isles and Isle of Man. Its ingredients are as follows:— Atrazine, 2,4-D (D=dichlorphenoxyacetic acid), Sodium Chlorate, plus a fire retardant. The fact that it is approved means only that its use on land not intended for cropping is approved, and only on the conditions laid down in the scheme. During 1981, the Board obtained advice from the Public Analyst, Mr. R. Arnot, and from Mr. J. A. Bregazzi, the Agricultural Adviser of the Board of Agri- culture and Fisheries, as it was concerned to ensure that it was using the most suitable and safest product. The recommendation received was that the Board should continue to use "Atlavar" but should use great care to avoid spray drift and run off into crops and gardens. In addition to "Atlavar" small quantities of "Grass Growth Retarder" produced by Chipman Chemicals have been used this year. This contains "Maleic Hydrazide" together with 2,4-D. The rivers section of the Board uses a product called "Amcide" which is painted on tree stumps on river banks. This is produced by Battle Hayward and Bower Limited and was recommended by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for use near water.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES — HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES — QUESTION BY DR. MOORE.

The Governor: Question number 18 is for written answer.

Question:— The hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore, to ask the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:— Will you please give full details (including brand names) of all chemicals used or distributed by your Board or its agents for weed or pest control? Answer:— The following chemicals are currently used by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in its farming operations at Knockaloe Experimental Farm:--

T rade Name Chemical Use Tok E Nitrofen Weeds in brassicas M36 MCPA Weeds in grassland Banlene Dicamba, mecoprop, MCPA Weeds in cereals Envoy Cyanazine, MCPA Weeds in cereals Chandor Trifluralin, linuron, isophoronc Weeds in cereals ortho-chlorotoluene Oxytril P Bromoxynil, ioxynil, dichlorprop Weeds in cereals Gramonol Paraquat dichloride, monolinuron Weeds in Potatoes Eptam EPTC Weeds in Potatoes Tristar Trifluralin Weeds in brassicas Prefix Dichlorothiobenzamidc Weeds in forestry Gramoxone Paraquat Total weed control Roundup Glyphosate Total weed control Reglone Diquat Dessication of potatoes

Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—Herbicides and Pesticides—Question by Dr. Moore. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T965

Trade Name Chemical Use Fubol Metalaxyl and mancozeb Blight in potatoes Asulox Sodium asulam Bracken Fusarex Tecnazene Storage of potatoes Storite Thiabendazole Storage of potatoes Gamma-Col Gamma BHC Insect pests in crops

The only chemical distributed by the Board to other persons is:— Cymag Sodium Cyanide Destruction of rabbits

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD — HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES — QUESTION BY DR. MOORE.

The Governor: Question number 19 is for written answer.

Question:— The hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore, to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board:— Will you please give full details (including brand names) of all chemicals used or distributed by your Board or its agents for weed or pest control?

Answer:— RODENT CONTROL DEPARTMENT INSECTICIDES Diazon lacquer Diazon Rentokil Insectrol aerosol Diazon Rentokil Crompest aerosol Diazon Cromesol Doom aerosol Diazon Rentokil Organophosphorus insecticide moderately toxic to mammals, acute oral LD50 — 300– 850 mg./kg. Fenitrothion W.P. Fenitrothion Rentokil Organophosphorus insecticide moderately toxic to mammals, acute oral LD50 — 250- 500 mg./kg. R.C.R. No. 37 Chloradane Rodent Control. Ltd. R.C.R. No. 46 Chloradane Rodent Control Ltd. Organochlorine insecticide moderately toxic to mammals, acute oral LD50 — 590 mg./kg. Cockroach bait Iodofenphos Rentokil Organophosphorus insecticide of low toxicity to mammals, acute oral LD50 - 2100 mg./kg. Disecticide Bromophos Dimcx Ltd. Organophosphorus insecticide of very low toxicity to mammals, acute LD50 — 3750– '1700 mg./kg. Ficam W Bendiocarb Fisons Ltd. Carbamate insecticide with high oral toxicity to most mammals, acute oral LD50 - 64 mg./kg.

Local Government Board—Herbicides and Pesticides—Question by Dr. Moore. T966 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Acetell ic 25 Pirimiphos-Methyl Organophosphorus insecticide of low toxicity to mammals, acute oral LD50 -- 2050 mg./kg. Malathion Dust Malathion Rentokil Organophosphorus insecticide of low toxicity to mammals, acute oral LD50 — 2800 mg./kg. Gammexane Gamma H.C.H. (Lindane) Lindane Dust Gamma H.C.H. (Lindane) Grovex Ltd. Lindane Smoke Generator Gamma H.C.H. (Lindane) Rentokil Organochlorine insecticide of high toxicity to mammals, acute oral LD50 — 88-91 mg./kg. Sevin Dust Carbaryl Grovex Carbamate insecticide of moderate toxicity to mammals, acute oral LD50 —850 mg./kg. Residroid Permethrin-Tetramethin Grovex Synthetic pyrethroid insecticide of very low toxicity to mammals, acute oral LD50 - 1300 mg./kg. Pybuthrin Insect Powder Synergised Pyrethris Cooper Insecticide (Pyrethin) to which the Synergist Piperonyl Butoxide has been added. It is of low toxicity to mammals, acute oral LD50 —584-900 mg./kg. RODENTICIDES Drat Chloropharinone May & Baker Ltd. Anticoagulant rodenticide containing a red warning dye which is mixed with barley to give a 0005 per cent. concentration. DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT MALKYL. Fungicide/Disinfectant. Colourless non-irritant, straw-coloured liquid biocide. Kills algae, bacteria, et cetera. Used for control of micro-organisms. Manufactured by Forward Chemicals Ltd. No harmful effect on natural bacteria in sewage systems. CHEMOXOL. A powerful chemical that controls odour and cuts through slime and grease deposits. Completely biodegradable and has no harmful effect on the natural bacteria in sewage systems and septic tanks. Manufactured by Forward Chemicals Ltd. SOLVEX CONCENTRATE. Deodorant/Solvent. The emulsifiable chlorobenzine for controlling objectionable odours by masking and eliminating build-up of sewage waste. Manufactured by National Chemsearch (U.K.) Ltd. Can be used in food plants and meat packing plants where high solvency effectively removes grease from grease traps. CHEMKIL. Non-Selective Weed Killer. Non-poisonous to humans and animals, non-flammable and safe on all surfaces. Biodegradable and no harmful effect on natural bacteria. Manufactured by Forward Chemicals Ltd. Under a contracted arrangement for rodent control between the Local Government Board and Rentokil Ltd. the latter uses the following chemicals:—

Local Government Board—Herbicides and Pesticides—Question by Dr. Moore. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T967

Name of Preparation Active Ingredient Formulation Fentrol 0.005% Difenacoum Whole wheat with blue dye Liquid Fentrol 0.10 Difenacoum Dilute with water to 0005% Fentrol Gel 010 Difenacoum Contact Gel Fentrol Dust 015 Difencoum Contact dust Lindane Contact Dust 50% Lindane Red pigment Alphachlorose Concentrate 16-6% Alphachlorose Icing sugar and green pigment Phostoxin Phosphine Tablet form Bromade 0.01 % Bromadiolone Lard-based paste Bromatrol 0005 Bromadiolone Whole wheat with blue dye HOUSING MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT CHEMKIL. Non-Selective Weed Killer. Non-poisonous to humans and animals, non-flammable and safe on all surfaces. Biodegradable and no harmful effect on natural bacteria. Manufactured by Forward Chemicals Ltd.

SOUTH ATLANTIC FUND (ISLE OF MAN) — DONATION OF £10,000 APPROVED. The Governor: Hon. members, we turn now to item 4 on the main Agenda, and I call upon the Chairman of Executive Council. Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— WHEREAS with effect from 1st June 1982 the Government of the Isle of Man has established a Fund parallel to and identical in purpose to the South Atlantic Fund established by the Ministry of Defence of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. AND WHEREAS the Government signified its intention to make a contribution to commence the said Fund. NOW THEREFORE Tynwald approves a donation from the Isle of Man Govern- ment of £10,000 to the South Atlantic Fund (Isle of Man) and authorise the Treasurer of the Isle of Man to apply from the General Revenue during the year ending 31st March 1983 a sum not exceeding £10,000 to give effect thereto. Your Excellency, I am sure that all of us over the past two months have had our eyes on the troubles in the South Atlantic. We are very pleased to learn that the Argentine Forces in the Falkland Islands have surrendered to Her Majesty's Forces, and we pray this is a prelude to a total cessation of hostilities and to the end of bloodshed. We extend our sympathy to the bereaved and I extend our congratulations to the Govern- ment of the United Kingdom, the Armed Forces and all concerned, and we especially wish any Island servicemen involved a safe and speedy return. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. P. Radcliffe: Although not directly involved ourselves in the Isle of Man, we have been aware that young people from the Isle of Mau serving in Her Majesty's Forces have been involved in the task force sent to free the Falkland Islands from the

South Atlantic Fund (Isle of Man)—Donation of £10,000 Approved. T968 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 military occupation of the Argentine. So far we have not been aware of any Manx casualties in the task force, though we are aware that Lieutenant Nigel Vaughan, whose mother lives in Port Erin, was serving on H.M.S. Sheffield at the time she was attacked. I am delighted to say that he has returned safely to his home. Apart from the interest in and sympathy with the British cause in this case — and I am sure we would all wish ourselves to be considered British in this context — as islanders we perhaps have even greater sympathy with the people of the Falkland Islands who have had to endure military oppression during the past two months. Some of us have met people from the Falkland Islands and we know that although our islands are 8,000 miles apart, we share many of the same problems and privileges of living on islands. Moreover we share our allegiance to the British Crown and I am sure that, were the people of the Isle of Man to find themselves in a similar situation to the Falkland Islanders, the British Govern- ment would come speedily to our rescue. At this stage we do not know what the future holds, but Executive Council in consultation with Your Excellency agreed that the Isle of Man should not be slow in coming forward to give some material assistance to the men of the services who have been injured, and to the families of those men who have made the ultimate sacrifice by laying down their lives. As President Reagan said last week, these men were not fighting for lumps of rock and soil but for principles and for people and in that they represent us all. The Isle of Man has always had an unequalled record for charitable giving, and I know that the establishment of a South Atlantic Fund on the Island, the money raised from such Fund to be forwarded to the central Fund in the United Kingdom, has been widely welcomed by people who wish to make some form of contribution to those men who are taking such risks for the sake of a free world. The contribution I am asking Tynwald to approve this morning is a con- tribution from the Isle of Man Government to commence that Fund. Although the Fund has been open since the 1st June, Executive Council feel it is appropriate that the Government should make a contribution, and it may be that as events unfold, further contributions may be made either to this Fund or alternatively to other forms of assistance, possibly to aid the Falkland Islanders themselves and the rebuilding of their community. Members will obviously have read in the newspapers of the generous donations given from other islands and may make comparisons with our proposed con- tribution. I would, however, point out that the Isle of Man has consistently made a not inconsiderable contribution in respect of defence and services, and were the actual amount of the Isle of Man's contributions over the past 35 years to be totalled up it would be a considerable sum of money. I can say that over the past 10 years our contribution has been in excess of £6 million. I think, therefore, that the Isle of Man need feel no inferiority complex about the size of its gift, whatever the size of the ultimate gift may be, compared to that given by other islands. As I say, Your Excellency, this gift from the Isle of Man Government is to commence the Fund. It may be the only contribution made by the Isle of Man Government, or a further contribution may be made at some future date in the light of events in the Falkland Islands. I sincerely commend this resolution to hon. members this morning and trust that it will receive your unanimous approval. I beg to move. Dr. Mann: I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

South Atlantic Fund (Isle of Man)--Donation of £10,000 Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T969

SPIRITS REGULATIONS (APPLICATION) ORDER 1982; EXCISE WAREHOUSING (ETC.) REGULATIONS (APPLICATION) ORDER 1982; CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACTS (APPLICATION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1982 — APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 5. 1 call upon the Chairman of the Finance Board. Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:- That- (a) the Spirits Regulations (Application) Order 1982; (b) the Excise Warehousing (Etc.) Regulations (Application) Order 1982; and; (c) the Customs and Excise Acts (Application) (Amendment) Order 1982, made by the Finance Board on 26th May 1982, be and the same are hereby approved. A Member: I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

SALE OF METHYLATED SPIRITS (VARIATION OF FEES, CHARGES, ETC.) ORDER 1982; VARIATION OF FEES ORDER 1982 — APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 6. I call upon the Chairman of the Finance Board. Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:- That- (a) the Sale of Methylated Spirits (Variation of Fees, Charges, Etc.) Order 1982; and (b) the variation of Fees Order 1982, made by the Finance Board on 26th May 1982, he and the same are hereby approved. A Member: I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

SOCIAL SECURITY — BENEFITS — APPROVAL IN PRINCIPLE TO NEW APPLICATION ORDERS, ET CETERA. The Governor: Item number 7. 1 call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Social Security. Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That Tynwald approves of the Isle of Man Board of Social Security— (a) making Orders under section 1(1) of the Social Security Legislation (Applica- tion) Act 1974 (or under the provisions of any enactment with powers

Spirits Regulations (Application) Order 1982; Excise Warehousing (Etc.) Regulations (Application) Order 1982; Customs and Excise Acts (Application) (Amendment) Order 1982—Approved. — Sale of Methylated Spirits (Variation of Fees, Charges, Etc.) Order 1982; Variation of Fees Order 1982—Approved. — Social Security—Benefits—Approval in Principle to New Application Orders, et cetera. T970 TYNWALD COURT. JUNE 15, 1982

corresponding to the said Section 41) applying to the Island subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the Orders— (i) the provisions of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1982, an Order made under sections 124 and 126A of the Social Security Act 1975 (an Act of Parliament); (ii) the provisions of regulations, to be made under section 5 of the Child Benefit Act 1975 (an Act of Parliament) fixing and adjusting rates of Child Benefit; (iii) the provisions of regulations, including any consequential regulations, to be made under section 33 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (an Act of Parliament); but so that such Orders as made by the Board shall not have effect before 22nd November 1982 and shall in any event he subject to section 1(2) of the said Act of 1974 (approval of Tynwald); (h) making regulations under section 16(1) of the Family Income Supplements (Isle of Man) Act 1975 varying the rates of benefit in a manner corres- ponding (as near as may be) to any variation in the rates effected by regulations to be made under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970 (an Act of Parliament) but so that such regulations as made by the Board shall not take effect before 22nd November 1982 and shall in any event he subject to section 16 of the said Act of 1975 (approval of Tynwald); and (c) commencing prior to the sitting of Tynwald in October 1982, to make the essential preparations for the changes which will result from the making of the Orders and regulations by the Board pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this resolution.

Your Excellency, quickly if I may, I would just like to say that this resolution is a standard resolution which we have had on the June Agenda Paper for a year or two, but I would like to move it formally this morning because there are one or two figures which I think it is right and proper at least to have record of. In making the orders and regulations dealing with the annual benefit upratings effective for the following November, it is necessary in order for us to proceed over the summer months to have this on the Agenda Paper. Those orders and regulations are subsequently submitted for Tynwald approval after the summer recess, but on the strength of the resolution the preparatory work necessary to give effect to the changes provided for in the orders and the regulations will commence during the next few months when we are in recess. Generally speaking the orders and regulations will provide for an 11 per cent. increase in benefits from the 22nd November 1982 in line with the increases proposed from that date in the United Kingdom; and to give you one or two examples, a married couple retirement pension will go up from £4735 to £5255, in supplementary the ordinary scale rate will go from £4150 at present to £4585 and the long-term scale rate of a couple from £5210 to £57.55. Widow's allowance will go from £41'40 to £45.95. Now the cost of the benefit upratings in 1982/83 is estimated to be £1,222,300 of which £921,580 will be a charge on the National Insurance Fund and £300,720 will be a charge on General Revenue. In a full year the cost of the increase in benefits will amount to £3 .5 million of which £2.65 million will be met from the National Insurance Fund and £0'85 million from the General Revenue. Provision for the increased cost in 1982/83 is contained in the Board's estimates as approved in the main Budget. It is

Social Security—Benefit—Approval in Principle to New Application Orders, et cetera. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T971 confirmed that the uprating order referred to in paragraph (a)(i) of the resolution on the Tynwald Agenda Paper will in its qualified application to the Island contain the provision for the age addition to pensioners over 80 which has been asked for by this hon. Court and got budgetary approval. I would point out that in the United Kingdom they are retaining theirs at 25 pence only. At present, supplementary benefit rates in the Isle of Man are generally ten per cent. higher than the corresponding United Kingdom rates and it is our intention to retain that differential. There will be certain changes in the earnings rules effective from November 1982, and the earnings limit for retirement pensioners in the first five years after pension age will be increased from £5200 to £57. 00, the first such increase in the earnings limit for three years. The £6 earnings limit imposed upon someone in receipt of invalid care allowance is getting doubled to £12 and the therapeutic earnings limit for those recovering from illness who want to get back into full-time work will increase from £16. 50 to £20 per week, and the depen- dant's benefit is not payable to the claimant of unemployment, sickness, industrial injury or maternity benefit if the dependant earns more than £13.90 per week, and that limit — the £13.90 limit — is to be increased to £1545. There are to be no changes in the United Kingdom in the rates of either the Death Grant or the Maternity Grant and we do not propose to increase the Isle of Man figures either, but we should point out that our Death Grant rate is currently three times higher than the United Kingdom rate and the Maternity Grant at £25 is staying the same as it is in the United Kingdom. The other one which sometimes hon. members have asked about is the pensioners' lump sum payment, the Christmas bonus; this now is, of course, incorporated in the National Insurance Fund payment and will again be paid this year; it will be paid every year now because it is in the National Insurance Fund, the qualifying week being the 29th day of November. It remains in the United Kingdom at £10 and there is no proposal for increasing it beyond that figure, the cost of the bonus being £165,000. Your Excel- lency, I beg to move the motion on the Tynwald Agenda so enabling the Board of Social Security to do the preparatory work for the necessary uprating from November 22nd.

Mr. Quinney: I beg to second.

Mr. Delaney: Would the hon. Chairman reaffirm the question of the age allowance?

Mr. Cringle: The age allowance will be £1.25.

Mr. MacDonald: Could I just ask a quick question? Could the Chairman publish in simple detail, not the mass of the legislation, but the very simple detail for the public to know the facts of what the new pension rate is? Just: "The pension for a married couple is — so much" — a very simple publication because people get very confused when they see half a sheet filled with paper.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I have a list here, and if the hon. member would like to have a look at it over the lunchtime with me, we will consider whether or not it would satisfy him for publication.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

Social Security—Benefit—Approval in Principle to New Application Orders, et cetera. T972 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' EXPENSES ACT 1975 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 8. I call upon the Chairman of Executive Council.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 1982, made by the Governor in Council on 13th May 1982 under section 9(1)(b) of the Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975, be and the same is hereby approved. A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

PRICE MARKING (PETROL PRICES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 9. I call upon the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Teare: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Price Marking (Petrol Prices) (Amendment) Order 1982, made by the Board of Consumer Affairs on 13th May 1982 under section 1(3) of the Price Marking Act 1976, be and the same is hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, MEASURING EQUIPMENT (LIQUID FUEL DELIVERED FROM ROAD TANKERS) REGULATIONS 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 10. I call upon the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs. That the Weights and Measures, Measuring Equipment (Liquid Fuel Delivered from Road Tankers) Regulations 1982, made by the Board of Consumer Affairs on 13th May 1982 under sections 12(1) and (3), 13(1), 43, 50 and 53 of the Weights and Measures Act 1971, be and the same are hereby approved.

Dr. Teare: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— A Member: I beg to second. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 1982—Approved. — Price Marking (Petrol Prices) (Amendment) Order 1982—Approved. — Weights and Measures, Measuring Equipment (Liquid Fuel Delivered from Road Tankers) Regulations 1982 —Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T973

BILL FOR SIGNATURE —REQUISITE SIGNATURES OBTAINED. The Governor: Hon. members, we will adjourn until 2.30 p.m. and then commence with item number 11 and we will take Petitions at 4.30 p.m. I have to announce that the Land Registration Bill has been signed by a quorum. The Court adjourned.

PROCEDURAL. The Governor: Hon. members, we turn to item number 11 and you will be aware that two Memorials have been submitted in connection with this item. The way I propose to handle this item is that I will ask the Chairman of the Local Government Board to formally move it, and if it is seconded thereafter in accordance with Standing Order 148 I will ask hon. members if they agree that the Memorials should be presented; if they do so we will then hear the Memorials in accordance with the normal procedure for Petitions; learned Counsel will be present and having heard the Memorials separately we will then proceed with the debate in the normal manner.

ISLE OF MAN PLANNING SCHEME (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) PROVISIONAL ORDER 1982 — APPROVED. The Governor: Item number 11. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board. Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982 be and the same is hereby approved. Your Excellency, if it meets with your favour 1 would prefer to actually make my opening address before the Memorials are heard. Your Excellency, I rise to propose the approval of the Local Government Board's Development Plan with somewhat mixed feelings. On the one hand I feel satisfaction and some relief that we have come to the last part of a long and arduous process and have, I believe, produced an order which commands a broad support from the population as a whole; against that I am slightly apprehensive that there are those who still remain dissatisfied with the order and who perhaps for the sake of some reservation which in the context of the whole document is quite minor would seek to have Tynwald reject the whole Development Plan out of hand. The Development Plan relates virtually to the whole Island and it is inconceivable that everyone will be happy with all the allocations of land included in the plan. In fact it is possible that only a few people would agree with absolutely everything. Accordingly I would urge members in looking at the plan to take a broad view and not allow their judgment to be coloured by the designation of a particular field but to see the plan in a wider context as a blueprint for the future showing in general terms where and what development ought to be acceptable. The essence of the plan is flexibility and this is a theme to which I propose to return shortly. Before reminding the Court of the purpose of the Development Plan and describing the way it will work, it would

Bill for Signature—Requisite Signatures Obtained. — Procedural. -- Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T974 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 probably be useful if I were to outline briefly its history to emphasise public consulta- tion and participation which has been involved, for I doubt if there has ever been a piece of subordinate legislation brought before Tynwald which has been the subject of greater research and greater consultation and public debate than this Development Plan. The Draft Plan was first produced in 1971 as a consultative document, and in November of the same year Tynwald, having seen the first consultative draft, accepted the prin- ciple that the plan be produced and directed that a provisional order be prepared and presented for its approval. In 1972 the plan was circulated to local authorities, but little adverse comment was received at that time. However, over a period modifications were made to the plan largely arising from planning permissions being granted and from representations received from within Government. By 1976 these modifications were such as to warrant the production of an overlay which updated the plan. This overlay was circulated as the original plan had been. Whilst the plan itself was being prepared and modified work was proceeding on the associated textual matter, and this was produced in consultative form in February 1979. There followed a period of intense consultation when the views of local authorities, Boards of Tynwald and the public in general was sought on the plan and the order. This culminated in May and June 1979 in a series of conferences with local authorities at which local views were put to the Board. During the subsequent 18 months all the views expressed on the order and plan were sifted and analysed and some 35 specific further amendments were made to the plan. These amendments resulted in the substantial net deletion of land allocated for development and, by and large I think, made the plan significantly more acceptable to those who had the strongest objections to it. Those who were involved at the time will probably recall particularly the strength of feeling about the proposed development of a significant area of open land between Port Erin and Port St. Mary. This area of development was significantly reduced, and this was perhaps the biggest single change made to the plan at that time. The order and plan as redrafted and modified were published and circulated again in January and February 1981 to all government boards and local authorities and all those who had expressed views at an earlier stage were informed of changes affecting them. Further views on the redrafted documents were sought and on 30th April last year there was held a public enquiry which is a statutory prerequisite of the making of the order. The representations made at the public enquiry and the written views submitted since the publication of the redrafted order and plan were then considered carefully by the Local Government Board, and by that I mean the former Local Government Board. The Board at that time concluded that no further amendments should be made to the plan or the order, but by then the 1981 House of Keys election was imminent and it was felt that the document should be bequeathed to the incoming Board for a final reappraisal before bringing the matter before Tynwald. The present Board has, since its appointment, studied the plan and the order and the outstanding unsatisfied comments and criticisms and, like its predecessor, has concluded that the plan and order should be introduced in the form in which it was presented to the April 1981 public enquiry. All the interested parties who have been kept informed of the progress of the plan were advised that the plan was to go forward, the form in which it was to go forward and of their rights enshrined in the 1934 Town and Country Planning Act to appear here before Tynwald to oppose its approval, and in fact two of those parties are going to exercise their rights this afternoon and present to this hon. Court Memorials. All I can do at this stage, Your Excellency, is to assure yourself and

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T975

other hon. members that my Board and the previous Board gave a great deal of thought to the proposals that will be put forward when considered in the final form that the Development Plan would take, and I would intend to explain why we made that decision later on in the day. Thus we have arrived at the end of a long process. In part that process has been dictated by the requirements of the principal legislation, but the issues have been such that it has been right for the Board to seek views at each stage and to endeavour to secure as broad a base of agreement as possible. Given the variety and divergence of views, full agreement was never a possibility; however, I do believe that very considerable consensus exists that the proposals in the plan represent a sound basis for future planning policy in the Island and the long gestation period and wide-ranging concentrations have helped us secure that concensus. The order itself comprises, as members will note, two separate documents: a plan and a bulky volume of textual matter. For convenience I will refer to these as being "the plan" and "the order" although strictly both are parts of the order. The plan itself illustrates visually a broad pattern of present and future land use for the Island. Land has been zoned on a broad basis in order to make provisions for the needs of the existing population with scope from each of the needs of any likely growth in population to a total of approximately 75,000 persons. Essentially the aim of the plan is to group together compatible land uses. New development areas will generally be extensions of existing towns and villages and thus make use of established street patterns, public utilities, schools, shops, public open space and other services. It is hoped to preserve that which is good in the environ- ment and improve that which is sub-standard, and over a period the environmental qualities of the towns and villages will improve and the amenities of the countryside will be protected. The plan is a broad statement of policy; planning applications will be considered against a background of that policy, but there is scope for flexibility within the zones as marked on the plan. If I might single out briefly one example from the notation for the benefit of members, there is a notation headed "Areas of Predomi- nantly Residential Buildings" shown on the plan in pink; in effect this category contains a group of land uses which would not be detrimental to the amenities of a residential area. On the face of the map there is an apparent vast over-allocation of land for this purpose and although it is indeed generous, it does include requirements ancillary to housing such as incidental open space, play areas, playing fields, amenity tree planting as well as differing but compatible land uses such as education, including nursery schools and primary schools, tourist accommodation, private garaging, storage, clinics, shops and even some light industry. So the notation is not inflexible, Predominantly residential use does not mean we will only allow houses and, by analogy, other notations also allow that flexibility. The notation on the plan is, I believe, largely self-explanatory, but if there are questions I shall be happy to try and answer them. The one aspect which is perhaps not self-evident is the status of those areas not actually coloured at all on the plan — the white land — and I should explain that it is envisaged that this land will remain substantially undeveloped in the period during which the plan remains in force. The textual matter for the order itself divides readily into two distinct parts; there are pages 1-15 which in broad terms supplements and give substance to the plan and are therefore new, and there are pages 16-40, Schedules to the order, which largely reproduce in one document the existing regulations and orders governing planning procedures. 1 do not propose to refer further to the Schedules in the order other than to say that they do not involve any significant change and they envisage the retention of our

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T976 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 existing administrative procedures which have been refined over time to suit our requirements and now, I believe, enjoy a wide measure of public acceptance and support. The new part to the order has its heart in Part 2 and Part 3, pages 4-10 and those parts relate the text to the plan itself and set out at some length the many and varied matters which the Board shall have regard to in considering future planning applications. This list is not necessarily exhaustive, nor is it claimed that all the standards referred to will be met all the time. They are not in themselves new, and they have in the main guided the thinking of the Board over many years. But they are here enshrined as written principles and targets, and we should have them constantly before us. The textual matter also makes provision for the Board to register trees or groups of trees in order to assist in their preservation on amenity grounds. Together the plan and the order provide the framework within which the Board can administer future planning policy and deal with individual planning applications. You said at the outset, Your Excellency, that the essence of the order is flexibility and I have referred to the degree of flexibility within individual notations. I would like now to return to that theme and emphasise that what is before the Court today is not designed to be the law of the Medes and the Persians. The important words in the order are to be found in paragraph 8 where it says, "The scheme shall be a guide to the Board," and in paragraph 11 where it says, "The Board shall have regard to" various matters including the plan. There is nothing in the order to prevent anyone submitting any planning application, however inconsistent with the Development Plan. There is nothing in the order to prevent the Board approving a land use which does not appear to conform with the plan or to prevent the Board refusing a land use which appears to conform. Clearly such decisions by the Board would be the exception rather than the rule, but they remain possible within the scheme as drafted and I believe it is right that they should remain possible. We must reserve for ourselves the right to respond in an exceptional way to applications of an exceptional nature. We must be free, as we now are, to judge each application on its merits, albeit within the context of some general policy guidelines. The Development Plan has been sketched using a broad brush. Whilst the plan itself is large and considerable detail has been included, the scale of the Island is such that the Development Plan can only show in the most general terms the planning policy. It is, for example, not always easy to identify on the plan a particular field so as to establish its particular planning status and in a teeming complex town or village certain identification or the specific notation of particular buildings is frankly not possible unless the buildings are quite an exceptional size. The Development Plan, therefore, will require to be supplemented. It will also be necessary to revise it over time. As this regards supplementing the plan work will now have to commence on preparing more detailed schemes for smaller areas, and these more detailed schemes will elaborate on the general principles in the Develop- ment Plan in respect of areas such as town centres, villages like Cregneish and St. John's, which will require special treatment, and areas that are particularly right for develop- ment. These will all require Tynwald approval, but they are necessary if the develop- ment of the land is to proceed in an orderly manner. This Development Plan provides the foundation for that further work. The Port St. Mary Village Commissioners have a particular problem as regards the provision of a further traffic route into their village as mentioned in their Memorial, and I recognise that particular problem, Your Excel- lency, and have committed my Board to an investigation of the problem along with the local authority on the Highway and Transport Board with a view to introducing a

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T977

supplementary order if it is found necessary. I have described the Development Plan as flexible; I also describe it as a foundation for further work. It must also be a vital living thing, it should not be allowed to become fixed and in some ways sacrosanct. We must be prepared to amend it, revise it and hone it to meet the further changing demands placed upon it. The plan and the Board which administers it must be responsive to the needs for change and the plan will fail if it becomes moribund and is allowed to stifle all initiative and development. We must regard it as a statement of what is accept- able now, and whilst I would not envisage bringing amendments back to the Court in the near future it would be unwise to say this is a once-and-for-all exercise; the possibility of amending or replacing the plan must always be recognised. At a recent public meeting I attended called by a local authority in the south of the Island it was suggested that the order should include a provision specifying that a review should be undertaken after a given period, and it was suggested five years. After due consideration we concluded that it would not be right to include such provisions, as the necessity for a review will be dictated largely by the future development and the speed at which it takes place. It is perhaps worth reminding members of the right at any time to call by means of a declaratory resolution for a review of a plan if they feel that such a review is warranted or overdue. I would hope that that procedure will not be necessary, certainly not as long as I am Chairman of the Board, because the Board itself will be alert and will be responsive to any change in needs and demands. So, Your Excellency, we have before us today a document which is at once a statement of planning policy and a set of detailed administrative provisions. As a policy document it is flexible and responsive and it is an outline which we must supplement with further detailed plans of particular areas. It is, however, in many ways a proven document, for whilst the plan has evolved and matured over the last 11 years it has nevertheless served as a policy guide to the Board, albeit in an informal way, during the period. It has proved itself to be an invaluable tool and has enabled the Board to achieve a consistency of approach which I doubt would otherwise have been possible. I believe the plan has proved its worth but it does now need the endorsement of Tynwald. It is important that we acknowledge the work and good planning in preserving and enhancing our Island, and it is important that the Board can continue the administration of planning in the know- ledge that its vision of the Island is in accord with the wishes of Tynwald. It has been the one and only weakness of the plan over the years that it has been responsible to challenge it as being only a policy statement of the Board. As a policy statement by Tynwald its status is immeasurably increased. Your Excellency, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name. • Mr. Duggan: I beg to second, Your Excellency, and reserve my remarks. The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed. The Governor: Hon. members, for the benefit of the Memorialists I will just read out Standing Order 148. "The Governor shall first give his ruling as to whether the Memorialist is entitled under Standing Orders to present the Memorial, and if such ruling shall be in the affirmative Tynwald shall decide whether the Memorial shall be presented." Hon. members, is it agreed that the two Memorials be presented? It was agreed.

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T978 TY;;WALD COURT. JUNE 15, 1982

The Governor: Hon. members, 1 understand the Memorialists will appear by Counsel. and I understand that Mr. Farrant appears for Port St. Mary Commissioners, and I will deal with Mr. Farrant and the Port St. Mary Commissioners' Memorial before Mr. Bindon's. Hon. members, is it agreed that learned Counsel he heard? It was agreed. The Governor: You may proceed. Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Your Excellency, hon. members of the Council and the Keys. I appear for the Village Commissioners of Port St. Mary who are Commissioners for that area and on their instructions 1 have filed a Memorial with this Court objecting in certain respects to the approval of the Isle of Mart Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982. Now gentlemen, I understand that you have a copy of the Memorial and to save your time I do not propose to read it, but firstly before I address you to summarise briefly the main provision of the objections which my clients wish to take to the order as planned. Firstly they wish field number 2866 on the Ordnance Survey, which in fact is the field north of what I would describe as Fistard Road, to be redesignated as an area of high landscape and scenic significance; the present proposal which is under the order before the House is that this area should be designated as an area of proposed predominantly residential use, and might I just com- ment on the Chairman of the Board's very recent speech in which he emphasised that the notations are flexible; in the description which he gave on this particular notation it is claimed that such an notation would retain its urban character, whatever flexibility there may remain within it. Secondly, the Commissioners object to the including of field number 3353 on the Ordnance Survey which is south of Fistard Road. Again it has been scheduled for development as a residential area in spite of the objections which the Memorialists had previously made, both. I may say in regard to this field to the north of Fistard Road to which I have referred and also to this field, which field they feel should remain in agricultural use at present and should not be developed as a residential area. Thirdly, Your Excellency, my clients have represented to the Board on a number of occasions that the field called Rhenwyllan field, number 3738 on the plan, should be included in this as an area designated for some residential development. Particularly the Memorial also contends generally that the Commissioners wish the general thrust of development in that area to be eastwards from the centre of the village rather than. as is envisaged under this plan, from the outskirts in Fistard. Now the Prayer of the Petition alleges that the Commissioners' interest is distinct from that of the general public and that they are entitled to appear and address you through Counsel in opposi- tion to this order. Hon. members will be aware that the plan now attached to the draft order was considered at the public enquiry which the Isle of Man Local Government Board held in 1981, at which meeting various objectors were represented and appeared including my clients. I am informed that the plan was not altered after this enquiry so far as my client's district and adjoining area is concerned. I am also instructed that the main alteration to the plan as the Chairman of the Board has just said, attached to the order as originally drafted. took place after its first publication in 1979. I am also instructed that the original plan of 1979 was debated by a joint public meeting which had been arranged, I believe, by the captains of the parishes concerned, for the three southern authorities, namely the Commissioners of the Village District of Port St. Mary, the Port Erin Commissioners and the Rushen Parish Commissioners, and at

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982 --Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T979

that meeting representatives of the Isle of Man Local Government Board and other members of this Court were present. Under this original plan which was discussed at that meeting a large suggested area of development was shown between Port St. Mary and Port Erin, as the Chairman of the Board has already mentioned. If that area had been approved it would have had the effect of joining the two villages together and making it the largest urban area outside Douglas. Hon. members will remember the violent verbal protest which that particular proposal produced. My clients were one of the objectors to that proposal and they were most relieved when an amended plan was produced at a later date omitting the new proposed development area between the two village districts, but they were disappointed to note that the new amended plan still did not accept the view of my clients, that Fistard, that neighbourhood, should be pre- served as an area of high scenic value and that the thrust of the development should be, as I have already said, from the centre and to the east as appears from the Memorial. By development from the centre my clients mean that the fields behind the Port St. Mary Promenade should continue to be developed as a natural extension of the centre of the village. This development, as hon. members will know, was envisaged at the turn of the century during the first great period of tourist development in the Isle of Man. So far as Rhenwyllan is concerned — and that field as hon. members will know, is at the other side of the district facing Carrick Bay — hon. members will know that the Commissioners have only suggested that some development take place there. It is not the Commissioners' wish that the area be entirely developed but only that an approved development takes place well back from the coast, but it would be related to any new highway to the village which runs through Rhenwyllan. Now the Chairman, we were very pleased to hear, has already referred to that a few minutes ago, and my instructions were before I came to this Court this afternoon that my clients did suggest that such a highway should be created to give a better and safer access to the village. am sure that hon. members will all appreciate the unsatisfactory nature and even danger that exists along the present narrow and winding beach road leading to Port St. Mary. The Commissioners have asked me to emphasise that they are not pressing for development for development's sake or for purely financial reasons but they feel that the village cannot be stratified in its present area and they accept, as the Board has indicated, that in the long term they must take part in any general scheme of develop- ment for the Island as a whole in their area. So far as Fistard is concerned I do not think I need to remind the Court again of its uniqueness as an area of beauty, and I would point out to the representatives on the Board that only one of three applications, I understand, for the development of field number 2866 was approved on appeal in 1973 but that a later application last year with which my clients were concerned, affecting the same field, was refused as the field to the north of Fistard Road. Field number 3353 — that is the one which we wish to remain in agricultural use — has never been the subject of an application to develop so far as my clients are aware. Lastly, my clients appreciated that it may well be contended by the Board that there must be some finality in the matter of the approval of this order which was first mooted as long ago as 1971. Now that I have heard the Chairman speak I see that that is their view, but the Commissioners have asked me to remind the Court that the Board itself took some eight years to formulate its plans and I am therefore instructed to press the Court to agree that the further consideration of this order itself be referred to a committee of the Court for further consideration so that my clients and others who are objecting

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T980 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

can expound their views at greater length and in greater detail than is possible for me in general standing at the bar of this Court today. Whilst it is appreciated that the plan attached to the order could not for reasons of economy and utility be on a larger scale than it is, I would suggest that it is difficult for hon. members to appreciate all that is suggested under the plan attached to the draft order because of its size, and I would submit that hon. members can only really understand the whole position so far as my clients' objections are concerned when they see the area involved marked out in large scale. Any committee that was appointed to consider the matter would be able to call on such large-scale plans which could then be referred to by all parties when the com- mittee meets. Very recently, Your Excellency, I accompanied my clients to inspect the area, and it was very plain, as I am sure all hon. members know, that the narrow, winding lanes of Fistard and the whole area which is scattered with small dwellings would be entirely ruined if further development took place. It was noticeable that the Perwick estate was not perhaps so noticeable or so obtrusive because it is lower down, so that when you were walking along the beautiful footpath which the Board have created on the coast of Fistard and which I must say is outside the area of the Port St. Mary Commissioners — and at this point I would say that my clients are very seriously considering coming before this Court to ask for an extension of their boundaries to include that area to enable them to exercise greater control over it, and it may well be in view of what has happened today or what may happen their application to extend their boundaries will be important and essential from their point of view. However, as I have said, the Perwick estate does not intrude in the way that a development higher up in the fields near the Fistard Road would. You would then have urban development there; the views on the footpath on the coast coming back would be affected and an area which is quite unique in the Island would be spoilt. So far as Rhenwyllan is con- cerned, the field is low lying, it is by the coast, and my clients envisage that, over the next ten years perhaps, if the highway which the Board is going to consider putting in is placed, this would be the natural place to erect houses, not a lot of houses but just a few, back from the coast and with gardens. Now, Your Excellency, and members, my clients feel that the suggestions which they are making to amend the orders are not obstructive, they will meet the planning requirements of the Board and the requirements of any increase in population. They will also prevent Port. St. Mary from stratifying, and will give it its area of development in a direction which the Commissioners urge upon the legislature is the right direction, namely to the east. Then one of the great facilities of Port St. Mary — its adjacence to this beautiful area of •Fistard — will not be affected. Accordingly, Your Excellency, I move the Prayer of this Petition that either the order is amended in the manner which we have asked or, if that is not legally possible, that it be referred to a committee to enable these important points to be debated and considered, hopefully to my clients' acceptance. Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, may I ask learned counsel if %\ hat he has suggested — that they could go eastwards instead of the west or south-west — means that in fact what you are doing is going into good agricultural land when it is second or third-rate agricultural land that you are going to take out of the Draft Development Plan or requesting to be left out of it? And further, could I ask him: who is the owner of the land at Rhenwyllan he suggests we put into the plan? Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Well, Your Excellency, so far as the agricultural value of the fields is concerned, I understand —I have no precise information -- there is not a great

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T981 deal to choose between any of the fields in question, but I do know from planning appli- cations in which I have taken part that the field to the north of Fistard Road, I think, belongs to a Mr. Kelly; it is part of the Kelly estate. And the field south of Fistard Road belongs to a Mr. Cooil, and is part of the Maddrell estate, Your Excellency.

Mr. Anderson: Is Mr. Cooil a member of the Commissioners?

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: He is, but I understand he took no part in this objection. This was mentioned to me, Your Excellency, but I understand he did not take part.

Mr. Anderson: May I ask who lives in the house closest to the land that you are asking to be taken out of the Draft Development Plan?

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: The Chairman of the Commissioners.

Mr. Anderson: The Chairman of the Commissioners? Thank you very much.

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Yes, Your Excellency, but with very great respect to the hon. member, I think I am entitled to protect my clients from .. I think that the arguments that I have produced in favour to protect this are arguments in favour of all the inhabi- tants of that area; the fact that one of the Commissioners happens to live there is surely irrelevant. This is a small island and I must say that it is very difficult to appear or take part in any matter with which someone is not closely connected somewhere. I would suggest that the suggestion that this has been made to the particular benefit of one particular member should be discounted by this hon. Court.

Mr. Brown: Could I just ask learned counsel, Your Excellency, whether we can in fact amend an order? Do we have to reject or accept an order?

The Governor: For clarification, I was going to make the point that hon. members and the Memorialists should be aware that this item can either be approved, not approved or referred back, and that is all. Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, may I just put a number of questions to learned counsel? The area of land to the east of Port St. Mary, which culminates in the Rhen- wyllan field to which you referred: would you not agree that the Board have left in quite a substantial amount of land to the east of Port St. Mary which could well be developed before embarking on the Rhenwyllan field itself?

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Yes. Your Excellency, as I understand my clients' suggestion, they do not particularly want to develop Rhenwyllan because there is no road running through it, and the only reason why they brought forward the suggestion is to show their progressive-mindedness in the fact that land is needed for future development and to make up for the fact they are suggesting that the Fistard Road area should be taken out of the plans but be replaced with Rhenwyllan for development in the long term.

Mr. Walker: If I could just continue, Your Excellency, because I think it would be helpful to the Court? This land that the Board left in for development in the plan which approaches the Rhenwyllan field, I would imagine, would enable Port St. Mary to develop as much as it would require to in the foreseeable future without the inclusion of the Rhenwyllan land. Now I can understand the position of your Commissioners when they are talking about an access road, but is that in fact a good enough reason

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T982 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 to include I think it is something like 27 acres of land in the development plan for Port St. Mary? Surely the 14 acres which is allowed for without Fistard Road should be enough to give Port St. Mary room to breathe in the future. Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Your Excellency, I have discussed this particular aspect with my clients and I think what the Chairman has said does represent their view in the short term, but the land behind the Promenade is only half-developed; it is an obvious area for development, and I think there is planning consent already there. That land will provide Port St. Mary with all the land it needs for some time, but for the future, to be constructive, they have put forward this suggestion in reference to Rhenwyllan. Mr. Walker: It is my understanding — and I hope you will agree with it — that there are a further two acres to be developed adjoining the Creggan Mooar and Creggan Beg estates, but there is a further acreage amounting to almost eight acres adjacent to that which has been included in the plan for development; there is a field almost in the centre of Port St. Mary — we are talking about going from the edge of Port St. Mary eastwards, but it might be better to concentrate on the centre of Port St. Mary—and there is a field in the middle of Port St. Mary which I would imagine is getting on towards four acres which has been included in the land for development, and it is my Board's submission that 14 acres of land, disregarding the area at Fistard for the time being, should be enough for the foreseeable future for the expansion of Port St. Mary except for the problem of the roadway, and I have given it to the Commissioners that in fact we will look at that in some depth. Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Well Mr. Chairman, Your Excellency, I hope I am interpreting the Commissioners' wishes correctly, it may well be if the Fistard matter is dealt with, the Rhenwyllan matter could be left also, but it is the Fistard area that my clients are chiefly concerned with.

Mr. Walker: Perhaps I could just ask a few questions now with regard to that particular land, Your Excellency? Field 3353 is a field on which there has been no planning consent as far as I am aware. It is a field that is surrounded by developments.

The Governor: Hon. member, it is rather difficult to hear what is going on in the green corner. (Laughter.) Mr. Walker: I was asking the petitioner if he would agree with me that field number 3353 is surrounded by development. Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: That is correct, Your Excellency. We inspected it on Saturday, so it is very clear in my mind; existing old houses run along the Fistard Road, and it is the Commissioners' view that if the field to which the Chairman of the Board has just referred is filled in with houses, it then becomes an urban area, which it is not at the present time. It then interferes with the view and look of Fistard when you return from Fistard to walk to Port St. Mary. This is their objection. Mr. Walker: It is, though, you would agree, a field surrounded by development, with cottages on the one side and new bungalow-type development on the south side? The principle of that field having potential for residential development is one that I think should not be discounted.

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T983

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Your Excellency, I do not want to keep the Court too long, but I would not accept on the Commissioners' behalf that the houses along that road could be described as a development. I would regard a development as a development of an estate with a number of houses, connecting roads and so on. Fistard Road, I think, was to some extent was built on before the days of planning control as is so often the case in the Isle of Man, and it might well be that if that area was opened today no building would be allowed on it at all. But the building is there, and there is no argu- ment in that fact for filling up an adjoining field with more houses. Mr. Walker: The south side of that field though is a new development? Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: There is some new development, yes. Mr. Walker: Quite a large one. With respect to field 2866, which is the field to the north side of the Fistard Road: would you not agree that that is an area of land which has had the benefit of a planning approval for a number of years? Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Well, I think the last planning application made was turned down. Mr. Walker: Would you not agree that it has had the benefit of planning approval for a number of years? Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: That planning approval was granted in 1972 when the whole atmosphere regarding development was very different in the Isle of Man, as we all know. Mr. Walker: It was granted in 1972 by the Board, it was confirmed on review and it was confirmed on appeal. Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: If that application were made now it would not be allowed by the Planning Committee, I would venture to say. Mr. Walker: Can I ask you for the reason why it was refused? A Member: You are the Chairman; you should know! Mr. Walker: I have to ask questions. Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: I understand the actual reason was that the application was premature, but my clients opposed this greatly, and they feel that it was their opposition which stopped this development going ahead. It may be that, now that the planning scheme order has gone through, the matter could be reviewed again by the Board if another application came forward. All I can say, Your Excellency, is that my clients will oppose strongly any such application in the future as they have in the past, for the reasons which I have already given. Mr. Walker: As far as they did in 1972? Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Your Excellency, 1972 is a long time ago when the situation was entirely different on the planning side and within the Island itself. Mr. Walker: In 1972 this field received planning approval which was renewed until 1976. Shortly after that there was another application which was refused because the Port St. Mary Commissioners said their sewerage system did not have sufficient capacity

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T984 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

to accept the drainage and for that reason and for reasons of access it was considered to be premature. But the policy of this land for residential development, as far as I know, has not been disallowed and I would just ask you, Mr. Farrant: are you aware of a letter from your Commissioners to the owners of that land— and it is in 1972 which may seem a long time ago, but in fact ten years is a short time — where they say "your proposal for the development of fields 1660 and 2866 was approved in principle by my Board at a Board meeting held in September?"

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: That was in 1972? It is a different Board, a different time, the whole situation is different. The present objections, Your Excellency, I understand have been notified to the Local Government Board on a number of occasions over the last few years. The view of the Commissioners now is as I have put it to you: my Com- missioners are not concerned with the land, Your Excellency, they are only concerned with the benefit and welfare of their inhabitants.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, may I question learned counsel? Your Excellency and learned counsel, can I first of all try to dispel the personal inferences that were made by certain of the questions that have been placed to you so far? If there was a plebicite or a referendum in Port St. Mary today, is it your clients' considered view that the over- whelming majority of the people in Port St. Mary would not approve of development on the Rhenwyllan field?

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: My clients say it is doubtful whether that would be the case.

Mr. Lowey: So there would be no objection in Port St. Mary?

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: My clients would not say that.

Mr. Lowey: No, my belief on the matter is that it would be different. However, can then come to Port St. Mary in general because, hon. members, this is not just a purely local matter, it is a national matter and those of you who know the Glenchass area will know it as an area of outstanding beauty. You do not remake this if you despoil it, therefore it is of vital importance to town members as well as country members. Is Port St. Mary one of the few villages in the Isle of Man that has escaped the attention of the planners over the last 20 years?

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: It would be correct to say yes, it has. Mr. Lowey: Is it your client's views that their representations at the public enquiry, the arguments that were put forward then, received no consideration by the Appeals Committee?

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Do you mean that their arguments at the public meeting were not considered by the Board?

Mr. Lowey: No, at the public enquiry.

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: They did not alter.

Mr. Lowey: They did not alter? They listened, but at the public meeting where there were a lot of objections forcefully put by a large number they were listened to, so therefore the next question is: would it not seem appropriate to call a public meeting

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT. JUNE 15, 1982 T985 with the new Local Government Board and make as much noise on the remaining piece of land as you made about the majority of the land surrounding Port St. Mary? Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Your Excellency. I would say yes to that. Mr. Lowey: Yes, indeed! (Laughter.) My final question, Your Excellency: the area of land referred to in the development — I believe the responsible attitude of the Port St. Mary Commissioners in this is that they do not want to stifle development but the area of land that they propose to be included, if you like in exchange for Rhenwyllan field, is about the same? Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: It is somewhat larger. Mr. Lowey: Thank you. The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to question learned counsel? Mr. Delaney: May I ask a question, Your Excellency? Regardless of whom owns the field and who may profit from any development which takes place in that area, have your Commissioners met the three members of this hon. Court who represent that area and what was their considered view of supporting the Memorial now in front of this Court?

Mr. Cringle: It was two to one.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, as the learned counsel will understand, we members who do not represent the area in some respect will really have to support the members who represent that area, as they know the area and represent the people of the area.

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: Your Excellency, I do not know how proper it would be for me to say what members of the Court think, but my instructions are that my clients have indicated to members of this Court, particularly those who represent this area, and they no doubt in the ensuing debate will indicate what their views are. I cannot say if they will support or reject us. It would not be right for me to say that. They themselves must answer that.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I would ask one more question if I may? You stated that, concerning this Rhenwyllan area, it would possibly be for a few houses, not for an estate or anything like that. The Commissioners, I take it from that remark, are not against a development; they are against an over-development, and surely that could be dealt with separately.

Mr. P. W. S. Farrant: My instructions are that the Rhenwyllan field, as members will know, when you go from Gansey you go to a house called the Red House, then there is a footpath which goes along to the mill — that is the field: it is low-lying. The Com- missioners appreciate this and do not wish any houses to be built on the coastline. They appreciate that the houses must be back but should only be a few with suitable gardens in between. But again I emphasise that they are only making this suggestion in a pro- gressive way and that their chief objection is to the possible urbanisation of the two fields near Fistard; this is their main objection: that the amenities of that area be preserved as they are at present.

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T986 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

The Governor: Thank you, learned counsel. We will now hear the Memorial presented by Mr. Bindon through learned counsel, Mr. Corlett. Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, hon. members of Council and Keys in Tyn- wald assembled. The Petition or Memorial in this matter is for my clients, Mr. Bindon, Mr. Reid and Mr. Garrett and if I could summarise, Your Excellency, the paragraphs in the Memorial as follows:— the Memorialists are the owners of some seven fields abutting upon Phildraw Road, Ballasalla, in the Parish of Malew, and they are set out in paragraph 1 of the Memorial, Your Excellency, and total some 21.4 acres in area. The Memorialists have made representation to the Board both by correspondence and at a public enquiry which was held on the 30th April 1981 pursuant to the Act in order that the fields might be defined as being suitable as areas of low density housing in parkland. The Board by letter dated the 23rd April this year advised the Memorialists that the representations had been dismissed by the Board, and that approval was to be sought of this hon. Court confirming the plan as presently drawn and defined, and no reasons were given to the Memorialists for the decision so made. The Memorialists, Your Excellency, say that they are aggrieved by the decision of the Board, and they aver that decision is wrong for the reasons set out in paragraph 4 of the Memorial. If I could refer, Your Excellency, to those reasons: the Planning Committee have permitted development on both sides of Phildraw Road to such an extent that the Committee has allowed the area of Phildraw Road to become a residential area suitable for low-density housing in parkland provided that suitable conditions be imposed on such development so as to ensure that the design of any buildings be of high intrinsic architectural merit and utilise, so far as possible, natural materials. Your Excellency, members of Tynwald will no doubt be familiar with the area with which this Memorial is concerned. It is that road leading out of Ballasalla up toward the Ballamodha Straight, and the area of land concerned does not go beyond the corner at Ballanank. Members will be aware that in that area is a mixture of old and new, but in my submission, Your Excellency, some 14 new developments have been allowed along Phildraw Road on either side, and the nub of paragraph 4(a) is that the Committee have allowed development to such an extent that it is now illogical to stop development on the field which is the subject of this Memorial. If I could refer to paragraph (b), Your Excellency: "The Memorialists well appreciate that the area of Phildraw Road, other than those parts which have been developed as aforesaid, is primarily agricultural in nature, and of high landscape value, but respectfully aver that the amenities of such area would not be detrimentally affected by prudent development utilising the high hedges which abut the said fields, and in- corporating the planting of trees." Your Excellency, the gist of that paragraph is that if this hon. Court were to redesignate the fields as being suitable for development which I urge, this would constitute natural in-fill as opposed to sporadic or ribbon development. And 1 was interested, Your Excellency, to hear the Chairman of the Board, in ques- tioning my learned friend, Mr. Farrant, suggesting that if we had an area of land surrounded by development therefore that area which was surrounded was suitable for future development. That, in fact, is the gist of the argument I would urge to this Court today, that we have on both sides of Phildraw Road, considerable housing and that it would be a natural in-fill and not sporadic development, which I urge today. Paragraph (c), Your Excellency, recites that the Malew Parish Commissioners, to the best of the Memorialists' information and belief, do not have any objections to the proposed definition of the said fields, and in that context, Your Excellency, may I refer

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T987 to section 7 of the 1934 Town and Country Planning Acts, which provide that before making a provisional order the Board shall confer with the local authority of any districts in which the land affected by the schemes is situate. I do respectfully urge this Court that it was the intention of the legislature that the local authority must be con- sulted, and that their views should be given due weight, and I do understand that the Malew Commissioners have no objection; indeed, when my client Mr. Bindon applied for approval in principle to development on one of the fields in question the Malew Commissioners supported the application. That, Your Excellency, must be a matter, in my submission, of some weight. Paragraph (d) recites as follows: "The Memorialists respectfully aver that the permitted boundaries of development as presently shown on the plan annexed to the order are arbitrary and do not bear any reference to the natural attributes of the area." Your Excellency, again, as presently drawn the plan terminates the permitted development on the west side of the road just to the north of field 2160, which is some halfway down the road, and on the east side just to the north of field 2162, slightly above that on the west side. And again the boundaries do not bear any obvious relationship to the natural amenities of the area. Paragraph (b), Your Excel- lency, recites that, "It is respectfully submitted that it is in the best interests of the Island as a whole that areas of low-density housing in parkland should be available, and that if the said fields are designated in such areas there could only be a very small number of additional residential units, each of which could have a large garden area, and in the circumstances it is submitted that any such development would be beneficial to the area of Phildraw Road in Ballasalla." Your Excellency, I understand, though I am subject to correction on this point, that some 186 acres only are available on this Island for low-density housing in parkland. It was clearly envisaged by the Board that this type of land should be made available, and surely it is in the best interests of the Island as a whole that such land be available, especially as I understand from the Chairman of the Board that a population of some 75,000 has been contemplated in drawing the plan involved. And surely it is important that we are able to offer to everyone all types of development in housing. For those reasons, Your Excellency, I urge that the Memorial of the Petitioners in this matter is justified, and I would urge this hon. Court to grant the Prayer of the Memorial.

Mr. Moore: Could I just ask one straightforward question, Your Excellency, just to enlighten the hon. members of the Court. Could you indicate how far the foul sewage drainage system goes up the road, on the Phildraw Road at present, and has your client any idea of septic tank drainage to any development they take, or would it be an immediate burden on Government resources to provide proper drainage for the rest of the road?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, I will try to answer that. I am afraid I do not know the precise limit of the public sewer from Ballasalla. What I am aware of, sir, is that the properties up either side of Phildraw Road are largely served by septic tank drainage, but this obviously is not entirely satisfactory. What my clients have urged, certainly what my client Mr. Bindon has urged, at the Planning Committee is that there is available to him — and indeed to the other Memorialists — quite a sizeable area of land which would adequately serve for one of the very modern types of drainage systems, which I believe rejoices in the name of the Tuke and Bell System. The manufacturers

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T988 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 of those systems claim that they are so efficient that at the end of the day you can drink the pure water from the effluent. Mr. Anderson: They are welcome to that! Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: But that is not a matter for this Court! But that, I think, Your Excellency, is the gist of the application, that the area of land which each of these Memorialists owns could very well cater with and serve a modest system of drainage like the Tuke and Bell system. Mr. Moore: Your Excellency, is it not a fact that it would not be acceptable in modern times for any proliferations or any extensions of any form of septic tank drainage, and therefore it would be at public expense that a sewer would have to be provided along that road if it was extended any further? Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, I would respectfully suggest that it is not consistent with this application that a public sewer be constructed, because the Planning Committee had allowed so often at Phildraw new developments which have their own septic tank drainage, and whilst in an ideal world no doubt a public sewer would be available, it is not in my submission now open to the Board to discriminate unfairly against the Memorialists. Mr. Moore: Have they not now said that enough is enough and they cannot allow any more septic tank drainage? Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, clearly, not only with sewerage systems but also with planning as a whole lines must be drawn somewhere, and I entirely agree that that should be so. But in the natural contours and attributes of this particular area I would suggest that it is entirely arbitrary and unfair to discriminate against these people.

Mr. Lowey: Could I, Your Excellency, follow that on? Can I declare an interest straightaway, sir, for whereas I knew every yard of the Port St. Mary fields I know every square inch of this, having spent my hunting and fishing days in this area. (Laughter.) I was referring to blackberrying and mushrooming! (Laughter.) Can I ask the learned counsel, is it not a fact that the land that we are talking of at this particular part of the road is further away from the river, and therefore pollution in any way, shape or form, than anything down the Phildraw Road which is within the plan?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, that is certainly my understanding that these fields directly abut the main road and are sited well away from the river valley.

Mr. Lowey: And have the Local Government Board in the immediate past commited large-scale developments above the proposed line that we are complaining of, arbitrarily drawn on this plan?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Yes, indeed, Your Excellency, that is my understanding that there has been a considerable development above the lines of the plan as shown. And could I also add, Your Excellency, that in so far as the efficiency of the Tuke and Bell system is concerned, I understand that there is quite a large development in the centre of Ballasalla which can be no further than 40 or 50 yards from the river which in fact uses that very system.

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982 —Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T989

Mr. Lowey: Could I, Your Excellency, then ask learned counsel about the natural attributes which he referred to in his address to us? Was he referring to the words used by the Local Government Board at the start of the Draft Development Plan where they said: "In most cases ..." — and forgive me if I am not quoting it exactly right - "wherever natural boundaries, i.e. rivers, roads or contours of land apply they should be used to the full." In other words you would use a river or a hill to delineate a line. And is not this particular proposal just a square line which they have permitted on one side of the road to extend further up?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: With the greatest respect to the Board I cannot see any logical reason for the way in which the plan has been presently defined. On the eastern side of the Phildraw Road the permitted development terminates with a farm road, above and below which there is considerable development both old and new, and on the west side of the Phildraw Road again it terminates on a boundary hedge, and again above that and below that there is considerable development.

Mr. Lowey: Are you also not aware that part of the development permitted by the Local Government Board above the line which we are now talking about has been of a timber frame contruction, and would learned counsel not agree that that sort of building can hardly be construed as a large one with traditional stone inclusion?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Yes. Your Excellency, I believe again that is entirely true, and it is in the anticipation of my client that if ever they did anticipate development they would use and indeed they would expect to be constrained to use materials of high architectural merit in stonework and slate. in other words using permanent materials other than timber. Mr. Lowey: If this Memorial was granted would learned counsel still confirm that the Local Government Board would still be the arbiters of what was permitted and what was not permitted?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, that must be so because all my clients seek to do by this Memorial is to preserve their position for the future, and they very readily appreciate that even if their Memorial were successful they would still have to come before the Planning Committee for approval in principle, and indeed for approval in detail.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, may I ask learned counsel: when you suggested that there was large-scale development up the Phildraw Road you did not mean that there was large-scale development in the form of a lot of houses, but some of them were large houses?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: No, sir, with respect, Your Excellency, I think I can count some 14 new developments on either side of Phildraw Road. It is certainly true that I think there are only two completely new dwellings; the others represent very extensive alterations and extensions to existing houses.

Mr. Anderson: But would you agree then that in fact while a septic tank is acceptable within a specified area because of the means of dispersing liquid from that source, if you intensify by building and filling in these other areas it can cause and has caused a

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T990 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

problem which inevitably could lead to a demand on public resources to provide mains sewerage?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, if I could possibly suggest in answer to the hon. member, we have some 21 acres of land under consideration. I would not expect there to be more than three new dwellings within that area of land. Mr. Moore: Three per acre?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Three new dwellings on the 21.4 acres.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, could I ask learned counsel: the extensions to which he refers — is not a fact that one of the extensions, quaintly called, is five times the size of the original building?

A Member: At least.

Mr. Lowey: At least. Let me answer for him: the answer is yes. (Laughter.) And would he also confirm that they have an indoor swimming-pool the size of this Court. upside the development proposed, and would he confirm the rumour ihat a five-hole golf course is going to be built on the land abutting, taking about 30 acres of agri- cultural land out of use?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, I am afraid I cannot; I can neither confirm or deny that.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I would like to ask learned counsel: with this type of development would he not agree that one of the reasons for the Draft Development Plan coming into being was the public outcry about such development as you are anticipating here, which is three houses in a large land area? And also, within the Phildraw Road area I would say that there have been about at least five new dwellings that I know of since the 'sixties. And I would say that this is why this came into being—because of public pressure. People do not like to see this sort of development where houses are put out in the countryside. And would you not feel that if this sort of development was allowed this is what will happen?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, I believe that the Board, in presenting the plan to this Court, have accepted the rationale of low-density housing in parkland. This is the very sort of thing which the Board is urging this Court to accept—on a small basis no doubt. And what I would say, Your Excellency, is that nobody would encourage ribbon development which is unrelated to any existing development. That would certainly not be the contention of my clients. But, surely, Your Excellency, if we have houses on either side of the road up to a limit and we are asking for one, two or three houses to be put in the gap, is that not a logical contention and one v. hich is good in planning terms?

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, if I may ask one or two questions? The area of land to which we refer as potential in-fill development land — I assume that you are referring to the piece that is between Ballanank farmhouse — as it used to be — and the existing area that is described as proposed for residential development and parkland?

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T991

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: That is so, Your Excellency, yes. And that is on the east side of the road; there is also one field on the west side. Mr. Walker: And so could we not describe every piece of land in the Isle of Man that is in between two dwellings as in-fill development land if that were the case? We are talking of 21 acres. Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: I take the hon. member's point that it is a question of the definition of what is ribbon development. But I would suggest that in this particular case it is not really ribbon development as we ordinarily understand the term. Mr. Walker: You would not agree with me, then, that one house in each of three fields alongside a highway is ribbon development? Mr. J. W. H. Corlett: I would not, Your Excellency, no. Mr. Walker: Are you aware of the problems that face many of the people that already live in that area of Malew as regards drainage?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: I am aware of the problems, Your Excellency, up the Phildraw Road, but again I would urge that the area of land for each proposed dwelling is so extensive as to obviate any problem of drainage.

Mr. Walker: Even where we have an inspector's report which advises the Planning Committee there are potential drainage problems? Would you not agree that the Planning Committee are quite right to refuse development on those grounds?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Again, Your Excellency, I would suggest that the Planning Committee look at these matters when the application is looked at in detail. We are only at this stage, Your Excellency, looking for the land to be redesignated. If there is a problem in one particular area of the fields then the application has got to be dismissed.

Mr. Walker: Finally, can you tell me the total area of land that your clients wished to have included as the proposed "land for residential development and parkland originally"?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: I cannot, I am afraid, Your Excellency, I do not know the total area. It was originally suggested that the land between Phildraw Road and the river should be redesignated. That is no longer being urged.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, learned counsel, why do you refer to this area as parkland? This is agricultural land.

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Again, Your Excellency, I am sorry that we have a problem of definition. I think, possibly, it is difficult to say of any one field or any one part of land in the Isle of Man that this is parkland. I think that the Board must have antici- pated that fields — albeit agricultural land — would be, as it were, converted to parkland; that is possibly an emotive word, one which connotes undesirable development but this is certainly going within the contemplation of the Board. They have asked for parkland to be developed with low-intensity housing.

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T992 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Mr. Maddrell: Could I continue that further, please, Your Excellency, to the learned counsel? It says in the planning that this is for siting a few exceptionally high quality houses, sufficiently attractive to the wealthy, in land as shown and allocated for this purpose. This land is not allocated for this purpose, and I do not think that the areas of low-density housing should be quoted by you in this case. This is not parkland of the kind I would think the Local Government Board is considering. Could you answer that?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Your Excellency, again I feel that this is a matter of opinion and one for this hon. Court to determine. The whole purpose of this Memorial is that the land as presently shown should be redefined as suitable for low-density housing in parkland. I am sorry I cannot be any more helpful.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, would counsel agree that the houses already along the Phildraw Road could be designated, and in fact the houses along the Orrisdale Road, as being houses in parkland?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Yes, I am sure that must be so, Your Excellency. If one looks back on certain developments which have occurred in the past, some of which might not be passed today, one could certainly say that yes, that is low-density housing in parkland.

Mr. Lowey: Could I finally ask one question. Your Excellency, as Orrisdale Road has come in? Is it not a fact that obviously a road is on the map, if you like, on very high land with skyline buildings, and is to the south-east of the proposed development?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: That is quite so, Your Excellency, and I believe that Orrisdale Road is possibly a bad example of what I would describe as ribbon development, and I would not be in such a strong position, I would suggest, as I would be with this present Memorial.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, could I just ask a question further to this parkland'? Would you not agree that both Ballanank and Ballacubbon were farms, and these fields were attached to those farms, and therefore they are agricultural land? Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Yes, I remember Ballanank, very well. Your Excellency.

The Governor: Thank you. learned counsel. The debate continues --- who wishes to speak?

Mr. MacDonald: I have just heard, listening to learned counsel, Your Excellency and hon. members, that apparently we are encouraging the development of large houses in parkland. Now, I never remember this when I was on the Board, certainly not in the way that if you develop a field and stick some trees in; it and change it into a park you can build what you like on it. The other thing I would like to ask the Board is to make quite certain where we are going. The whole purpose of the Draft Development Plan is to control development for all the Manx people, not for a limited few. And I do not think the Manx people really want the Isle of Man scattered with Billy Butlin type houses with 50 acres and a house sitting in the middle. We need our agricultural land, we are spending a lot of Government money in preserving agricultural land, and here we are giving it away for so-called large-scale parkland development. I hope the Board can assure me this afternoon that this is not what they plan to do, to cover the Isle of

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T993

Man with large mansions or manors on land which we must not forget — and I keep saying this to Tynwald — on land which was originally all publicly owned, until the Great Enquest carved it up. We certainly do not intend the Isle of Man to be covered in houses and no farmland left, and I hope the Board will convince me today that this is the whole aim of a development plan, to control development, not to allow develop- ment to continue higgledy-piggledy all over the Isle of Man. Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, before the Chairman replies, the hon. member who has left us, Mr. Delaney, did ask a question of the hon. members, and you said that every member would have the right to put his own case. Now, as far as I am concerned, I think that members should realise: we have talked about the 1960's and then you come to the 1970's, and today we are in the 1980's, and I think it is incumbent to think of 1971 when the Draft Development Plan first came into being, and possibly even why it came into being. And I would agree with the hon. member for the Legislative Council, Mr. MacDonald, when he says that it is not the object of the exercise really to create an odd house in acres and acres of farmland; that is rank bad planning, and if and when it has happened it is a fault of the planning authorities, full stop! And that has to be said as fact. Now, in the early 1970's and late 1960's, I think it was evident that there was certainly a fear abroad in the Isle of Man that there were too many new residents, and to some extent I think it was borne out of the objection to new residents at the time when we had such things as "tax haven" slogans painted on roads and on roofs, and things like that; it was out of the general desire for an element of control, also allied to development, that it was decided that a development plan should be drawn up. Now, Your Excellency, like my hon. colleague, the Chairman of the Local Government Board, I would contend that the Draft Development Plan has been a good document and it has been of value to the Isle of Man over the remaining part of the 'seventies. Having said that, I can equally say that I think times have somewhat changed, and we arc in the 'eighties, ten years on, and I do not think there is as much of a problem facing the Isle of Man, particularly in relation to planning, as what there was in the early 'seventies. And, as I said, I think this Draft Development Plan has been an ideal piece of equipment for the planning authorities. The Chairman of the Local Government Board in his opening remarks this afternoon did say in winding up that it has been beneficial over the last ten years, but that its status would be immeasurably increased by Tynwald approval. Now, frankly, I can see no need for the status of the Draft Development Plan to be immeasurably increased, and I say that quite sincerely to my hon. colleague. It is a very useful document if it is kept as a useful document for the planning authority. We all know that it is there, the planning people know it is there, and in fact it is a useful document. But the decisions must always be with the planning board in the end, and if the planning board happens to be the Local Govern- ment Board, well then, they have to accept that responsibility and deal with it. Per- sonally, I believe that we need to some degree an alteration — and I accept that my hon. colleague says that there are less planning difficulties these days — but I think that we could very well do with looking up our planning procedure and reverting to giving the local authorities some element of planning, albeit on a regional basis, as was the evidence given by the southside authorities to a commission years ago. And I would like to see the local authorities handle planning, bearing in mind that we had a Draft Development Plan, with guidelines given to them, and a procedure of appeal to the Local Government Board. To my mind that would make far better use of our resources

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. I-994 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 on the Isle of Man, a better use of Local Government Board time, and I am equally sure that the local people, at grass roots level, would be far more satisfied than they are today. What it boils down to, Your Excellency, is that as far as 1 am concerned 1 think that if we do not refer this matter back for the Local Government Board to come yet again with alterations, bearing in mind what the two Memorialists have put forward — and with respect to the Local Government Board I think the two Memo- rialists have justly put what are very valid cases this afternoon, and I think we have to accept that; equally I attended a public meeting which the Chairman of the Local Government Board, my colleague, referred to, and there was a definite wish by the constituents at our end that into this document should be placed a statutory right which was referred to. that it would have to be reconsidered after a period of years. Now I know my colleague, the current Chairman, said he will continually keep it under review; when he says that, and he also says that if it is passed by Tynwald it is going to be immeasurably strengthened, that to some extent means that I am less happy with it. If he will be prepared to take it back, to consider amendments yet again, and put into the Draft Development Plan some form which would say that it would have to statutorily be reviewed from time to time, then reluctantly I could find myself accepting it. Otherwise, Your Excellency, as far as I am concerned, it should remain exactly what it is, a pretty picture for the use of the planning authorities. The President of the Council: Your Excellency, the Speaker that has just resumed his seat made reference to the fact that he thought local authorities should have more say in the planning of their own areas. I have recently chaired a meeting that has been, and still is, looking into the powers of government boards, and the first committee we looked into was that of the Local Government Board, and we called all of the local authorities together and the attendance was extremely good; all of the local authorities were present. And they rejected the idea of having anything to do themselves with their own planning.

Mr. Cringle: It depends how it was put, Your Excellency.

The President of the Council: Well, the ball was put firmly into their court and they neither wanted anything to do with the planning in their own authority—they were too close to the ball — nor did they want anything to do with the allocation of their own particular houses; I want to state that. We were somewhat surprised. We thought we were handing them something out here that was going to give them greater authority, but the local authorities did not really want that.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, if I may — I am given to understand, certainly from my southside authorities — because this has been put before -- that what the hon. member for the Legislative Council says about a Select Committee of Tynwald is not correct.

The President of the Council: You have put it in a very nice way, but it you were anywhere else I would think you were calling me a liar! (Laughter.) I emphasise again, Your Excellency, this was put in the form of a document to the local authorities. The local authorities in all cases were present at two meetings that were held in these very government buildings, and the local authority rejected out of hand having anything to do with their own planning; that is fact. I am going to go on to another part, Your

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T995

Excellency: dealing with the general report that has been presented to us, I think we are confronted with one very great difficulty when we are saying that certain land should be considered building land, certain land should be looked upon to be non- building land, and other land should be designated in a particular way. Economics play a very big part in this question. In some parts of the world, of the Commonwealth if you like, when development was taking place with large trunk roads, with trunk sewers, with the development of electricity and water, betterment charges were made in respect of the land over which these services were given. Subsequently when that land was developed it fetched a very much higher price than it was thought to be valued at hither- This was the case also in the Isle of Man. Many tracts in the Isle of Man were looked upon, not even to be good agricultural land, but almost scrubland. But when the trunk sewers were developed, the roads were developed, the electricity was put in, the water was put in, and at Government expense, this land became highly desirable building land. And now if you do come to sterilise part of this land without some form of compensa- tion you are bound to get into difficulties. And I believe this is a great problem. I think we should support the Local Government Board in their desire to try and iron this question out in the interests of the Isle of Man and its subsequent development. And I was very impressed by the Chairman when he said, "Whilst we ask you to support the plan that we have put before you it is not the plan of the Medes and Persians." In other words, there could be decisions whereby these can be altered because of circumstances that do arise from time to time. I believe that if we appoint Boards - and the Local Government Board has spent a lot of time on this particular item; it has been a troublesome item, and there will be affected parties all over the country, not only the Memorialists that we have heard today, but landowners and people in all areas will be affected by this; and from time to time the Local Government Board will be presented with cases, and in some they will agree to some alteration, whilst in others they will rigidly adhere to policy in the interests of the Island. I think we should support the Local Government Board at this stage with the full knowledge and assurance given by the Chairman that reasonable demands for alteration in this plan will receive con- sideration — I do not even use the words "sympathetic consideration" — but would receive some consideration; and they then should be judged on the merits of the case. It is a very difficult subject that we are dealing with, but we have had the Local Govern- ment Board on this for many years and we have had the plans submitted to us. Many of the parts of the plan — a little part is next to my house —I do not particularly care for. But that is another question; all of us could say the same. Whether we want it developed or we do not want it developed, there is the matter of opinion. We should support the Local Government Board, and I repeat, Your Excellency, with the full knowledge that special cases will receive consideration as they arise.

Mr. Moore: Your Excellency, I am one of the people who for the past ten years have struggled along as a member of the Planning Committee, so I am very happy to see this document in front of us at this time, and I would include the learned counsel for the Memorialists in my remarks when I say that they have been in front of us on many occasions and put cases exactly in reverse to what they are putting today on a specific issue. Of course, it is their brief to do so and I am not blaming them for it. But we on the Planning Committee — and there are quite a few around this Court who have been on the Planning Committee — know only too well that in 10 years I have dealt with some- thing like 20,000 plans because we are dealing with 2,000 plans a year. Now, you make

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. T996 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 out of that 10,000 enemies and 10,000 friends. (Laughter.) The rest of course are "don't knows", but as regards the people who have been involved in planning, for every decision you make somebody is happy about it and somebody is opposed to it. So no matter how you go on you have got to take a realistic view of what we are trying to do. And the point about the whole situation all along has been one, simple, straightforward fact as was made by my hon. colleague, the President of the Council: this question of cost of public services. And when we talk about public services do not forget that we are talking about keeping the main development within the periphery of what is already there in the way of the public services, sewers, electricity cables, water, gas, everything which is in the road, and over and above that the public services which are extended by means of the postal service, the doctor, the school, 'buses for the children to school, all of these things out in isolated areas create a burden for the taxpayer. And the more we allow of these one-off incidental houses up back lanes and everywhere else, the more expense you are putting on the taxpayers of the Isle of Man. Now, planning is all about that. And we have said all along for the past 10 years, "Get on with it, get a document." We have had a document, the Draft Development Plan. The only thing that has been said to us on the Draft Development Plan was, "Ah, yes, but that is only a suggested document, it bears no weight at all, it is something that you can be advised about." We said as soon as we can get down to it when we have consulted everybody who knows anything at all about it, every local authority, and have got their views and have compounded what we feel about the views that they have expressed, we will tie it up. The result of it now — it is tied up. Of course there are still objections, you will never settle everybody. This is the best effort you are ever going to make. And I am saying to this hon. Court today: do not defer it, do not send it back for any further thought, you can come back next year with the Board behind you and amend it in some way, but this is the nearest that you are going to get for perfection and now is the time to make your mind up that this is the document you want. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I have listened with interest to the siren voices of the Local Government Board today, and really, you know, I wonder whether we are not going to make the flexible completely inflexible, and in so doing perhaps destroy some of the benefits that have accrued and are likely to accrue to the Island through the very fact that we have been reasonably flexible in our approach to planning. I cannot help but think, Your Excellency, as I have witnessed the discussions and decisions in more recent times, that hon. members are p.:Thaps today somewhat concerned about their own actions, not in relation to planning but perhaps in relation to what they had deemed at the time to be desirable protective measures, measures taken in the interests of the public at large, health and safety at work, the interpretation of certain of these measures for instance. There are other examples, of course, which I could give: we have the example of the fire officers, for instance and the interpretation that is based on their work. Now when you listen to the Chairman of the Local Government Board this afternoon saying, "Well, yes, we are going to he flexible and all will be well; you can be assured there will be no dogmatic attitudes adopted by my Board", well, it is rather like the situation, you know, when hon. members, when dealing with the clauses of an Act, are assured by the hon. member in charge, "It will not be the intention of my Board to apply this clause and you need have no worry". But shortly the Board changes and it is the on-going administration that in fact gives you the interpretation, and it is not always the one that you really expected. Your Excellency, at the end of that, what I am

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T997

trying to say is that I believe it is desirable for Tynwald to continue to be flexible, and I think the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle, put his finger on this very point: we have a guideline, it has been a helpful guideline; now we are going to be positive and say, "This is our Development Plan." Now, Your Excellency, I was interested to hear the hon. President of the Council contribute to this debate, because prior to his contri- bution I had been looking at a report which had been produced to this very Court in 1956 and it was one of a series of reports which related to actual development plans in the Island; and one of the important provisions which were trotted out in connection with development plans was the requirement for betterment charges to be made and the requirement for compensation for sterilization to be available. And it is interesting to find while looking back on those records that all the deemsters who were present in the Courts in those days — W. B. Cowley, Sidney Kneale, Deemster Cain — each and every one favoured a pattern of compensation for sterilization. Although the Act provides it, Your Excellency, the 1934 Act I do not find any provision in this order and I would be glad if the hon. Chairman would indicate if I have missed that sort of provision. But I do note, Your Excellency, that that particular report I referred to — the 1956 report— which was positive in its requirement was signed by not only W. B. Cowley, S. J. Kneale, G. Higgins, A. Moore, G. P. Quine, but by Mr. Nivison himself. Mr. Anderson: He was a young man then! The Speaker: Yes, sterilization compensation. Now, Your Excellency, there is obviously quite a great deal of decision already reached in the minds of members here today, but I do say that as far as I am concerned I cannot accept this positive appli- cation, because I can see it as being a matter which will cause endless problems for Tynwald in the years ahead and Tynwald especially at this moment going into a period of financial concern, and I think that we must remain flexible in all our operations; now, whether that be in the attraction for people to come here to live, in housing them, or whether it be in the housing of industry there has to be flexibility. Let us face it: when this Government was faced with industry or planning, what did it do? It went for industry, there would have been no factory at Ronaldsway if the planners would have had their way; that is without question, and this is the sort of situation that hon. members must always be prepared for in their thinking, and I think that if you do this and you pass this order today then it will become too inflexible for Government to move in the future, when the need and if the need arises. The Governor: Hon. members, we will adjourn for tea. We will hear Petitions 110 afterwards and then resume this debate. The Court adjourned.

PETITION OF THE ONCHAN VILLAGE COMMISSIONERS TO BORROW A SUM NOT EXCEEDING £50,000 FOR FLOOD PREVENTION MEASURES—APPROVED. The Governor: Hon. members, we return to the Petitions, item number 20 on the Agenda. I call on the hon. chairman of the Local Government Board. Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Onchan Village Commissioners for authority to borrow a sum not exceeding £50,000, repayable within

Petition of the Onchan Village Commissioners to Borrow a Sum not Exceeding £50,000 for Flood Prevention Measures—Approved. T998 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15. 1982 forty years from the date of borrowing, to defray the Petitioners' proportion of the cost of works to abate the nuisance of flooding at Church Road and the surrounding areas in Onchan, I beg to move:— That the Prayer of the Petition be and the same is hereby granted.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS TO BORROW A SUM NOT EXCEEDING £31,500 FOR AN EXTENSION TO THE BOROUGH CEMETERY — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 21. I call on the hon. Chairman of the Local Govern- ment Board.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas for authority to borrow a sum not exceeding £31,500, repayable within 20 years from the date of borrowing, to defray the cost of an extension to the Borough Cemetery, I beg to move:— That the Prayer of the Petition he and the same is hereby granted.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS TO BORROW A SUM NOT EXCEEDING £42,900 FOR ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WORKS DEPOT AT LAKE ROAD, DOUGLAS — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 22. 1 call upon the hon. Chairman of the Local Government Board. Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas for authority to borrow a sum not exceeding £42,900, repayable within forty years from the date of borrowing, to defray the cost of Phase 5 of the alterations and improvements required to the Works Depot at Lake Road, Douglas, I beg to move:— That the Prayer of the Petition he and the same is hereby granted.

A Member: I beg to second.

Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum not Exceeding £31,500 for an Extension to the Borough Cemetery—Approved. Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum not Exceeding £42,900 for Alterations and Improvements to the Works Depot at Lake Road, Douglas—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T999

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS TO BORROW A SUM NOT EXCEEDING £46,700 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO PRE-1930 DWELLINGS — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 23. 1 call upon the hon. Chairman of the Local Government Board.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas for authority to borrow a sum not exceeding £46,700, repayable within ten years from the date of borrowing, to defray the cost of improvements to pre-1930 dwellings, I beg to move:— That the Prayer of the Petition he and the same is hereby granted.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed.

It was agreed.

PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS TO BORROW A SUM NOT EXCEEDING £47,000 FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND RENEWAL OF STREET LIGHTING — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 24. 1 call upon the hon. Chairman of the Local Government Board.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas for authority to borrow a sum not exceeding £47,000, repayable within 15 years from the date of borrowing, to defray the cost of a further phase of a scheme for the improvement of lighting levels in various roads, provision of additional street lighting and phased renewal of the Promenade lamp standards, I beg to move:— That the Prayer of the Petition be and the same is hereby granted.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum not Exceeding £46,700 for Improvements to Pre-1930 Dwellings—Approved. Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum not Exceeding £47,000 for the Improvement and Renewal of Street Lighting— Approved. T1000 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS TO BORROW A SUM NOT EXCEEDING £900,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNCIL FLATS — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 25. I call on the hon. Chairman of the Local Government Board.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas for authority to borrow a sum not exceeding £900,000, repayable within 20 years from the date of borrowing, to defray the cost of the second phase of improvements to Council flats to comply with the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1979, I beg to move:— That the Prayer of the Petition be and the same is hereby granted subject to the approval of the Board being obtained prior to the placing of the contract for each sub-phase involved.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

ISLE OF MAN PLANNING SCHEME (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) PROVISIONAL ORDER 1982 — DEBATE CONCLUDED.

The Governor: That, hon. members, now concludes the Petitions. Thank you, learned counsel. We now revert to item number 11 and I call on the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Cain.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, before I discuss the actual Draft Development Plan itself I just want to confirm the remarks made by the hon. President of the Council in relation to the attitude of the local authorities towards planning; I was present at that meeting representing a local authority at the time and every word that he said was true.

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cain: Now, as far as the Draft Development Plan itself is concerned it does seem to me not to make a great deal of difference whether in fact we adopt it or not. My primary concern when looking at the order was to establish whether there is sufficient flexibility for the Planning Committee of the Local Government Board to enable them to disregard the terms of the plan if the situation so required. I am aware that in a number of instances there are highly contentious aspects to these plans; certainly in Ramsey there are bits I would not be entirely happy to go along with all the way, but I think the most important thing about the Draft Development Plan is that in fact it will give moral backing to the Local Government Board in their decisions. We are always talking about the pressure from the grass roots; the Planning Committee come under pressure from a different source: very considerable pressure from developers, who are certainly not grass roots, perhaps they are "golf tees" but they are not grass

Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum not Exceeding £900,000 for Improvements to Council Flats—Approved. — Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15. 1982 T1001 roots, and in my view anything that we can do which can give the Local Government Board some moral strength to resist those sorts of pressures the better, and I believe the adoption of this order could do so. I am also concerned, however, at this aspect of compensation and I think this is a problem that we arc going to have to consider a great deal; the ideal solution, as one or two of us here are aware, of course, is to revert to the pre-Act of Settlement period which in fact would mean nationalization of land, but I think that that is impractical today, but nonetheless I think that this is something that we are going to have to give considerable thought to in the future. Certainly for the moment this provisional order has my wholehearted approval.

The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, could I just make one comment on com- pensation? The hon. Mr. Speaker did make a suggestion that in years gone by Deemsters Cowley and Kneale and Deemster Cain and others, I think, said that the compensation was a requirement; they, of course, were absolutely right, but may I remind Your Excellency and members of the Court that in 1973 the Branches of this Court changed the law; The Town and Country Planning Act 1973, section 3 states that section 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1934, which section relates to compensation for injurious affection, shall have effect as if the words "A provisional order shall contain such provisions as the Board shall consider necessary or desirable with respect to compensation . . ." were substituted with the words "A provisional order may contain such provisions . . .", so the position quite simply, Your Excellency, is that from 1934 to 1973 any provisional order had to contain provisions for compensation, and I have no doubt in discussions on this subject in the 1950's and 60's the deemsters or anyone else who had knowledge of the Act would advise that there had to be compensation, but in 1973 that was deliberately changed; it is not even in the Schedule, it is in one of the main sections of the 1973 Town and Country Planning Act, that obligation was removed and became purely optional whether there was any provision for compensation or not. I believe that had that provision not been changed it is extremely unlikely that this order would ever have come forward at all; so I think that the position about compensation, it must be understood, was changed totally in 1973 and there is now no obligation on a provisional order to contain provisions for compensation, and therefore the remarks which may or may not have been made by learned deemsters in the past would not be relevant today.

Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, I would rise to support the plan and in doing so I would also like to allay fears of certain members of this hon. Court that the plan does not have statutory and powerful rights but is more of a guide to grading certain areas of the Island: for residential, farming, industry purposes, et cetera; only one local authority, your Excellency, has opposed parts of the plan, the plan is always open to amendments and is not the final say. The plan has taken many years to materialise and a lot of time and thought have gone into it, and I sincerely hope that today this hon. Court will support the plan, I would also like to point out, Your Excellency, that one of the objectors has a pecuniary interest to some extent. Mr. Lowey: I find it hard to follow the last part of the hon. member for South Douglas' remarks that one of the members has a pecuniary interest in objecting; however I will leave that to him to explain. Your Excellency, it may seem ironic indeed to some- one who has been on his feet in this Court for seven years asking for a draft development

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. T1002 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 plan to be placed before the Court at its earl iest opportunity ... I have asked questions twice a year for the last seven years towards that end, and when 1 have got that plan here before me it may seem ironic that I will be moving an amendment for it to be deferred for a few months — ironic indeed! However, that does not deter me from doing so because, hon. members, Tynwald Court is a court of justice and we are asking here for justice, and those who appear to come back to the bar of this Court are in effect asking for justice, and you do not turn deaf ears — you may disagree at the end of the day — but you do not turn deaf ears for justice. It is strange indeed that in one case it is a local authority as a corporate body asking for justice in its area, and I would ask this hon. Court to listen to what they are saying; in effect they are not saying, "Cut something out" and "Stop the world, we want to get off," it is their world which they are protecting. Either by accident or by design, in the rush to develop the Isle of Man in the last 20 years, they have maintained a major part in the character of Port St. Mary — the selfsame commissioners whom we tend to ridicule from time to time in this Court, myself not least amongst them. However, their track record is very good; they have said they do not want development in a certain area, but they would like to see development in the interests of their village in another area. I think that simple message deserves another look, and that is precisely what they are asking for and no more; they are not asking for £100,000 for this or that, they are asking for another look at their problem because if you sow the seeds today with this draft development as proposed you could be sowing the seeds for the self-destruction of their community as they see it. I believe the Commissioners have presented a reasonable case for reconsideration, and I think this Court would be well advised to heed it. The other case is, yes, personal interest, if you like. What is wrong with that? In this world, if you do not look after yourself you will go down, but in those three individuals seeking redress at the bar of this Court they have got behind them the local authority, the National Farmers' Union — that is a fact; and I can tell you, having lived as a native of the village, I know full well that I have yet to come across a single person in that village who has any objection to the proposed extension of Phildraw Road, because literally, hon members, it is too late for Phildraw Road and I would suggest, if you have not been down it, then to hear the arguments that are being placed before this Court today mainly by ex-members of the Local Government Board who have created that over the last 15 years, that you quickly have a look down that road, because really the message that I have been hearing today does not square with the Phildraw Road that I know. Those are the two points that are specific at the bar of this Court, but for the Draft Development Plan itself I firmly believe, Your Excellency, that it is in the Island's interest to have a draft develop- ment plan, and I believe by and large that this plan meets that requirement. I regret very much indeed, after listening to all the objections, that the Local Government Board past and present has decided after a public enquiry not to accede to a single proposal at that enquiry, and yet the Chairman said in his very able opening address to us "Trust us; we are flexible," well, if that is a sample of their flexibility you can see what is in store; there is an inflexibility notwithstanding the good intentions of the Chairman, and so to that extent I regret the general consensus, because it has been quite an amazing feat — and if I can use a very good phrase coined by my hon. friend the Chairman of the Local Government Board, about "honing it down" finer still — to get it confirmed to virtually a dozen objectors is quite an achievement in itself, but I did note one phrase

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982--Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T1003 in his opening remarks that really sent warning bells ringing in my ears: he said that there would be flexibility within the zones, we are creating the zones today and that is where the flexibility will be: within the zones. He came at the end of his speech to say that the overall plan is not complete, but flexibility within the zones was the key-note; that was in the opening part of his speech which really needs to be underlined. Now my hon. friend in the Council, Mr. MacDonald, stated that he was not prepared to allow farmland to be used as an original 40-acre lawn around a private house; I agree with him, but that is what we are getting under the present system, and under this Draft Development Plan there have been hundreds of acres taken out, and this is to the credit of the past Local Government Board: they were prepared to alter the plan as they originally saw it and withdraw hundreds of acres. The areas of dispute are minuscule; we are talking about less than — I have not done an arithmetical exercise on it, but I would venture to say — less than 70 acres; plus the safeguard that at the end of the day the Local Government Board have the final say whether it is premature or not, so the powers, the leavers are there already; so why they have taken this inflexible stand at a public enquiry which was well conducted —I pay tribute to the Chairman - and where everyone had a say, I do not know. I thought the arguments put forward by local conservationists, the agriculturists, the National Farmers' Union, the individuals, were reasonable and fair, and having sat through it all day for no account to be taken of it surprised me beyond belief. I believe, Your Excellency, that this particular order would not be affected in any material sense, if I move this amendment:— That further consideration be deferred until the October sitting to permit the Board to reconsider the provisional order in the light of the evidence given to the public enquiry and to this hon. Court. I think that if we are caught and if we want to be seen to be giving justice to an authority as a corporate body and to individuals, albeit three in number, then I believe that this Court will be enhanced in the eyes of the people if we agree to my request to defer consideration, and I beg to move. Dr. Mann: I beg to second. Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, I have just one small matter I would like to bring out, though I do not wish to prolong the debate any more than I need to: I would like the reassurance of the Chairman of the Local Government Board with regard to farmers, that any farmer whose property does not come within a development area can still apply to the Local Government Board to build a house for a son who wishes to work on the farm or alternatively for himself when he wishes to retire. There has been a lot of disquiet in the farming community subject, and I feel that they would like an assurance from you that they may still apply and will be given proper consideration on their applications. The Governor: Hon. members, we are now speaking to the adjournment, which has been seconded, so the five-minute rule applies. Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, I do not think that my hon. friend from Rushen realises what he is doing with regard to Phildraw Road; I think the baby has gone down the hole with the water, because I do think we need this Development Plan. I think that we need it very, very badly. What he said which is not quite correct was that the Local

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. T1004 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Government Board have the final say, but unfortunately, as any member who has served on the Planning Committee knows, they have not; it is the Planning Appeals Tribunal who have the final say, and quite often things that the Local Government Board Planning Committee have rejected have been overruled by the tribunal, so they have not the final say. The other thing that does rather disturb me in the plan was that my hon. friend said that they did not listen to a word that was said to them at the public enquiry; 1 was very disappointed to find that although I had stressed there the desperate need to preserve the marshland areas such as exist in the Isle of Man, places like the Congary in the Neb, places like the central valley where some have been filling it in for the past 10 to 15 years, virtually cutting away the Greeba gap — these I was hoping would be shown in the plan as reserved areas; they are not in it and for these reasons alone I was quite prepared to vote against the Development Plan, but I think hopefully that they could still have the power to preserve this area.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I am against the adjournment of this plan. We have been 11 years getting to this point, and now we want to put it back a number of months, a lot of arguments have been heard and I do not want to repeat them about why we should get on with the job. I am a member of the Planning Committee and very much so; I welcome this plan. 1 feel the Planning Committee, the Local Government Board, and the Keys behind me, and Tynwald. Any member of this Court is eligible to come to any planning consent and make his point of view, and he can fight against it if he thinks that it is wrong for his area. There have been a lot of mistakes made previously and I think that the different Boards — there have been three Boards to my knowledge — have ironed these out. It is a guide to planners, it is not a rule book you have to read full of rules, it is a guide and you apply commonsense to it. The sad thing is that there are three people on the Planning Committee and there are thirty other planners in this august room and there are about 60,000 advisors outside, which means that the three people who are doing the planning are very much up aloft and in need of some moral support, and I welcome what the member for Ramsey said about moral support. You cannot be parochial about this, and I have heard a lot of people talking parochial things; this is an Island plan and you have got to look at the whole of the Isle of Man situation. There is no danger whatsoever with the procedure; you have the planning procedure, you have the review procedure, you have the Appeals Tribunal; hon. members, I think that everything is safeguarded and I vote against the adjournment.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, very briefly, I too want to rise to oppose the adjournment. I do not think it is terribly significant whether this is approved or rejected, but to send it back for further reconsideration you could have 12 or more objectors next time, because there is not any way in this sort of situation you are going to satisfy everybody. When I was Chairman of the Local Government Board we took out a very large area of the area which was objected to in the south, the variation in opinions that exist now are insignificant, and there are a whole lot of factors that I do not want to go into in that context. But I think that this Court has got to make up its mind here today in my view, and either accept or reject it; and quite frankly I do not think it will be terribly significant either way because, as the Chairman has stated, it will have to have some flexibility but it will give a little bit more backing to the Local Government Board Planning Committee in the future and I oppose the adjournment.

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1 982—Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T1005

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I wish to speak to the motion for adjournment and in fact oppose that motion, and in doing so I would say sincerely to hon. members that I did not enjoy moving this order in front of this Court when the two only Memorialists to appear in front of Tynwald were from my own sheading. However, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to agree with exactly what has been said by all those who presented the case at the public hearing, including the two Memorialists this after- noon. It would have been very simple to agree but I do not believe, hon. members, that that is my role. My role at that time as a member of the Planning Committee and now as Chairman of that Committee and Chairman of the Local Government Board is to listen to the point of views put forward by the Memorialists, and by other members of the general public, and then come to a decision, and that decision I can honestly say is as far as I am concerned the right decision — not the easiest decision, I can honestly say, in my own particular case. I think that it would be helpful to hon. members if I just outline the Board's point of view on the allocation of the land that has been suggested to the Court today. As far as the Port St. Mary Commissioners are concerned they seek the deletion of two small areas from the plan and the addition of one small area of it. With regard to the two requested deletions one area, that is field 2866 referred to before and the Kelly land which is behind Fistard, does have a lengthy planning history dating back to 1970, and throughout the whole of that period it has been acknowledged by successive planning committees that the land has development potential. In the early years, certainly up to an application in principle submitted in October 1972, which remained valid until July 1975, the Commissioners themselves approved the development and were apparently willing to accept the type of drainage from that land. The other area which the Commissioners seek to have deleted — that is field 3353 — has not been subject to past planning applications; but it is, however, as I tried to bring out earlier on, a small field of some two and a half acres entirely surrounded by existing develop- ment, and the last Local Government Board and my Local Government Board considered it would be illogical to designate that field for other than development at some time. Now, although the two fields are allocated for development that does not mean that development will automatically follow; the landowner must seek development rights if he so wishes, and if he does, before giving detailed approval to development on those areas, the Planning Committee in consultation with the Commissioners and others would need to be satisfied that the problems with services as indicated in the Memorial were capable of solution. The Planning Committee would also need to be satisfied that the development is timely, and in that connection it is perhaps worth stressing that the most recent application for approval on field 2866 was in fact refused on the grounds that in our opinion the development would be premature. As regards the Rhenwyllan field which the Commissioners seem to have allocated for development, that field is situated behind the Bay Queen Hotel and stretches towards Gansey Point. In the original draft of the Development Plan it was allocated for development but it was removed by my Board along with other areas following pressure from residents in the south of the Island. In the fullness of time, as I have said before, if further development takes place in Port St. Mary it may well be necessary to extend into that field, but at this stage and for the foreseeable future the field is isolated and its development, I feel as a resident in the south of the Isle of Man, would be unacceptable. There is, moreover, ample alternative land for development in and around Port St. Mary to meet foreseeable

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. T1006 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 development. So as far as Port St. Mary is concerned the Board differs from the Com- missioners on the areas to which development should in the short and medium term be confined although in the long term oppositions may not be so far apart. We respect the Commissioners' views and it would have been pleasant to be able to record that we had their support. As it is, we differ, notwithstanding the very considerable amendments to the plan made in an attempt to make the plan more palatable to the people in the south. My hon. colleague mentioned justice before, Your Excellency, I would say that as far as my Board is concerned we have tried to be fair. It is perhaps worth noting at this point that out of all the 26 local authorities only the Port St. Mary Commissioners retain reservations about the Draft Development Plan which they have felt sufficiently strongly about to be in front of this Court today, and that, I would suggest, is a reflection of the consensus which now exists for the broad principles contained in the plan. As regards the Petition of Mr. Bindon and others I would simply say that that area of the Phildraw Road has been the subject of quite a number of planning applications over the years, one of which is still the subject of appeal. In essence we have a situation where certain landowners along the upper reaches of the Phildraw Road feel that the area already allocated for low-density housing and parkland lower down the road should be extended to include their property; in the Board's view such an extension would be sporadic and would constitute ribbon development, and there would be difficulties for services particularly drainage as has been proved, and the present Board's view in this matter follows that of their predecessors. So we have, therefore, a straight difference of opinion, with the Planning Committee exercising its judgment as is its right and duty. That being said, there is nothing to prevent further planning applications for develop- ment along the Phildraw Road and nothing to prevent a future planning committee or indeed the present Planning Committee adopting a different view if new evidence is presented. Apart from the two Memorialists, Your Excellency, members will, I believe, have received a letter from the National Farmers' Union — I appreciate, sir, that I have probably overrun my five minutes, but I do think it is important; as I said before, justice was mentioned by my hon. colleague, and I would just like to convince hon. members that we did look at their points of view. I am somewhat at a loss to answer most of the points made in the letter by the National Farmers' Union, as there is little in it with which the Board would disagree, and there is certainly nothing in the planning order which militates against the points raised by them; the Farmers' Union calls for flexibility, and I have been at pains to stress that that is the essence of the plan, and there is nothing in it that will inhibit farmers and growers from making applications to build dwellings on their land for retirement or for farming reasons. The Farmers' Union calls for a continuation of the Board's reasonable attitude towards the erection of farm buildings, and there is nothing in the plan or order which could change the Board's attitude. The preservation of good agricultural land which the Farmers' Union calls for is a prime purpose of good planning, and is surely one of the main reasons for the introduction of legislation to prevent sporadic development gobbling up vast tracts of good agricultural land as we have seen in the last 20 years. I do not want to see that happen if and when the boom happens again to the development industry. That being said, we have to provide for future development, and that development should relate to existing towns and villages. The point the Farmers' Union made about open- plan estates is broadly accepted by the Board and by myself in particular, and I would

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T1007 refer members to page 10 of the order, to sub-paragraph 14 near the top of the page, which says that the Board shall have regard to ensuring that where the site of the development is in an agricultural area, where it abuts a highway where livestock may be driven, such measures are taken by the developer as are necessary to prevent livestock from straying on to the site. That was specifically to cater for that point made by the Farmers' Union at an earlier time. The Farmers' Union stressed the need for consultation between the Board and local authorities in all planning applications. We accept that need and I would confirm that the views of the local authorities are an important piece of evidence which we take into account. The final point made by the Farmers' Union relates to the question of whether the plan should be a statutory or simply a policy guide, and this is the only point on which I should take serious issue. The Farmers' Union suggest that to make the plan statutory it will become less flexible. I cannot accept that argument, as I said before, there is nothing incompatible between the statutory development of the plan and flexibility. So, Your Excellency, after saying that, I think that hon. members should know the point of view of the Board about the matter I am referring to and I would certainly oppose the motion for adjournment.

The Governor: The hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, just in support of my Chairman, I think one of the major problems with the plan is that it is affecting everybody in the Isle of Man and, of course, it is a problem and I think that, considering the few complaints—while it would have been nice to have nobody attending this Court to object to what is being put forward — I think the amendment will only serve to put back something for two months, and whether that will make any difference is always the thing that an adjournment is abOut, but I think the thing, Your Excellency, is to remember that Development Plan will not become sacred exactly in the form it is in; in other words, if what was on the Development Plan was the only thing that was not flexible there would be no need for a planning committee because they would not need then to sit down and discuss problems. And I think the other point, Your Excellency, is that anybody will still be able to go through all the procedures of objecting to any development in their area, and if the commissioners of an area do not agree with the development of a certain type they can object which is the same as it is today, so that will stay, and I think that this Court should support this. It is a thing that has been going on now for over ten years, it is a thing that will go on, if we do not make a decision, for another 10 or 15 years and we could be caught out, as the Chairman has stated, with a building boom again and then suddenly find we are stuck without anything to try and help protect what we want to protect; and it was, as I said before, Your Excellency, the public outcry initially that started off this Development Plan, and certainly the area at Phildraw Road, which is in the hon. member for Rushen's area — and I was quite surprised when he said there were no objections, and I would agree that there may not be any objections at this moment or in the last couple of years while there has not been any major development, but if suddenly a mansion was to spring up there you would certainly have quite a few people who were shouting in the early 70's that this sort of development should not go on, and this is what concerns me. That would happen again.

Mr. Lowey: There was one in the last year.

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. T1008 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

Mr. Brown: I am thinking of a major building, not a redevelopment or extension. I believe you would have trouble if they were getting built as they were in the early '70's, your Excellency, and this is where it all started, and I am sure that members are far more knowledgeable on these matters than I am; as my colleague, Mr. Maddrell said, the Planning Committee has three members, and the rest of the Court should try and back up what is a very, very difficult job where you cannot please everybody, and I think it is important that the plan is the type of development or the type of building that is put on the land and that is as important, and therefore I think that we should not support the adjournment because I feel that it is too important and should be got on with, and therefore, Your Excellency, I am supporting my Chairman.

Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, in view of the assurances given by the hon. Chairman I will support the resolution and oppose the adjournment, but the reason for my getting to my feet at this time was to have a point clarified. Now, as hon. members know, this question of whether a member of Tynwald or a member of the House of Keys could attend at a planning hearing was the subject of considerable debate not very long ago in another place, and I would like to just ask the Chairman if he would clarify a point that was made by my good friend on my right, Mr. Maddrell, because I think he did give the impression that a member of the House of Keys has a right to attend before a Planning Committee hearing and my understanding is that that is not so, and I would like that cleared up.

Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, can I just briefly say that in a way I am a little bit concerned at the way the debate has gone today. It is certainly a very contentious subject and that has been aptly illustrated, 1 think, by the sparring in the green corner between the contestants down there. How serious this is I do not know, but there are warning lights flashing here; there is something wrong, there are no two ways about it, and 1 feel that I have to ask one or two questions, and if I can get the answers to them I will support the scheme, if not I will hope that you will take this back' and look at it again. The first is the fact that if you apply for planning permission in a certain area and there are other areas which have not been developed you can be refused, simply because Joe 13loggs up the road has had a planning permission in for five, six, seven houses. If you wish to build one house on your own that can be used as a reason for refusing your application. Now I do not think this is right, this takes away the individual right to build and a free hearing. The other point that I want to raise, sir, is the fact that the Local Government Board are not concerned with ownership, and this point was brought clearly to me just the other day when, in my own constituency, a plan was applied for and granted and, during the clearance of this particular site an extra area was brought in which was public land. On that particular area there were quite a few trees. Now, on the original planning application no trees were to be felled, and yet in a way there was so much confusion over this that permission to fell all these trees was obtained and this site now is cleared absolutely. Does this mean that there is no consultation between Boards or whatever when planning applications are sought? Or is there no planning consultation between authorities? This is one thing that I think should be included in this Development Plan; the fact that local authorities should be consulted prior to development and not afterwards. This is one of the things I feel that should be included. I would like to have confirmation or observations on these particular points,

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T1009

Mr. Chairman; if you can do that I will support you, but if not, I will hope to get the answers in a month's time. The Governor: I will now put the motion for adjournment. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:— In the Keys— For: Messrs. Quirk, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Payne, Lowey, Cringle, Martin and the Speaker — 9. Against: Messrs. J. J. Radcliffe, Callin, Maddrell, Walker, Brown, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Kneale, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare — 12. The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys. nine votes being cast in favour and 12 votes against. In the Council - For: Nil. Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Moore, P. Radcliffe, Swales, Kerruish, MacDonald and the President of the Council — 7. The Governor: In the Council seven votes against, none in favour, the motion for adjournment fails. I will now call upon the Chairman, unless anybody else wishes to speak on the substantive motion, to reply. He need not repeat his earlier comments. (Laughter.)

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I have no intention of repeating my words! This has been a very interesting debate, and I would thank those members who have taken part in it. It is the culmination of many years of work for the Local Government Board and I would hope that at the end of the day we will receive this hon. Court's approval. I think I would be wrong if I went over every members' questions in detail but I would say that the first question which arose was the one about developments in park- land, and in response to Mr. MacDonald I would say that there has been no extra land included in the plan since you were on the Board as a member of the Planning Com- mittee for the sort of development; there is an area of allocation at Phildraw, at Hillberry Green in Douglas, and I think one other but they are limited, it is poor land use and it is recognised by the Board as such. The matter of compensation and betterment which was referred to by a number of speakers — and the position was clarified by the Attorney-General — was included in the draft order produced by my Board a couple of years ago. Throughout the consultative procedure that was referred to by numerous people, when in fact we brought it back to the Board and further considered it, we felt that it would be a mistake to include it in this order. We did give a com- mitment that we would give further thought to the principle and, if we found it necessary, we would bring another order to this Court. We would argue that the development plan is, in itself, sufficiently flexible to obviate the need for compensation and betterment. The plan will be subject to revision at intervals and at each review

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. T1010 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

further areas could be allocated for development according to current demands, and thus theoretically all the land in the Island will be phased rather than sterilise in per- petuity, and so the Board did not see the need for a compensation or betterment provision, certainly not at this stage. As far as Phildraw Road is concerned, Your Excel- lency, it is in my part of the Island, 1 view it from the top of Black Hill quite often and I think it is pleasing to the eye, but I would say quite sincerely that enough is enough. Now we argue about where the boundary should be drawn perhaps, and somebody has to make the decision, but there are drainage problems at Phildraw Road and I am certain that the problems up there would be compounded by further development and I do not want to see that happen. My hon. friend and member of Council, Mr. Mac- Donald, mentioned areas of marshland which ought to be retained. Well, there was an ecological survey of the Island carried out and many of the recommendations put forward by that survey are in fact encompassed in this plan and the important areas certainly will be preserved for all time.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the Congary included in that?

Mr. Walker: I am told that parts of the central valley are included, sir, but they are specified in the plan. About Mr. Callin's question about members appearing in front of Planning Committee: members can only appear at the discretion of the Planning Committee and that discretion is there. A witness is called by either the applicant or somebody in opposition or as an individual in his own right if he is an adjacent resident and has a rightful say in an application. Mr. Quirk referred to the possibility of an area of land allocated for development in an area giving problems to somebody else who wants consent and I must say, yes, at times that does happen; where areas are allocated for development and consent given, if another person applies for development in a similar area but, in the opinion of the Planning Committee, it would be better if the other area was developed first, well then, he can be refused on the grounds that it is premature. Now, I would say to him that I would hope the situation he refers to is going to become less and less common, because the Planning Committee are not in the business of granting great approvals in principle to large areas of land which will act as a detriment to other areas, and we would rather deal with applications in small steps, if you like, so that we can control the situation all the time. Your Excellency, I would wish to thank most sincerely those members who have spoken in support of my pro- posals and who would wish the Island's development to continue, as it must, in a controlled and reasonable manner, preserving the amenities of our towns, villages and countryside. This afternoon I have concluded a commitment to my constituents to present the order for the approval of Tynwald, and my Board has concluded the commitment to Tynwald. I would wish to place on record my appreciation to previous Local Government Boards and to my staff for the effort that has gone into the making of this provisional order, and I would urge your support. I would also say I have a commitment to my wife to clear the dining-room table. (Laughter.) Your Excellency, I would beg to move the resolution standing in my name.

Mr. Duggan: I beg to second, Your Excellency.

The Governor: I will put the motion. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982—Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 19S2 T1011

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:—

In the Keys -

For: J. J. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Maddrell, Payne, Lowey, Walker, Brown, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Martin, Kneale, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare — 17. Against: Messrs. Quirk, J. N. Radcliffe, Cringle and the Speaker —4.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 17 votes being cast in favour, four votes against.

In the Council — For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Moore, P. Radcliffe. Swales, Kerruish, MacDonald and the President of the Council -- 7.

Against: Nil.

The Governor: In the Council seven in favour, none against. The motion carries.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (FEES) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 12: British Nationality Regulations.

The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the British Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1982, made by His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor in Executive Council on 6th May 1982, be and the same are hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed, hon. members?

It was agreed.

MANUAL WORKERS SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 13: The Chairman of the Whitley Council for the Isle of Man Public Service.

Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— WHEREAS under the provisions of the Tynwald resolution dated the 6th day of July 1977, the Manual Workers Superannuation Scheme 1977 (hereinafter called the 1977 Scheme) was approved.

British Nationality (Fees) (Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1982—Approved. - Manual Workers Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme 1982—Approved. T1012 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

AND WHEREAS the Official and Trade Union Sides of the Whitley Council for the Isle of Man Public Service (Manual Workers) have agreed that manual workers employed by Boards of Tynwald and Departments of the Government should he superannuable under the 1977 Scheme only after they have been found to he medically fit and have agreed that the 1977 Scheme should be amended to give effect to that agreement. NOW THEREFORE Tynwald resolves that the Manual Workers Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme 1982 be and the same is hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION (APPLICATION) (No. 2) ORDER 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 14: The Chairman of the Board of Social Security.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I beg to move:-- That the Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 2) Order 1982, made by the Board of Social Security on 17111 May 1982, be and the same is hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

CREMATION REGULATIONS 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 15: Cremation Regulations.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Cremation Regulations 1982, made by the Local Government Board on 14th May 1982, be and the same are hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 2) Order 1982—Approved. — Cremation Regulations 1982—Approved. TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982 T1013

GAME ORDER 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 16: The Game Order.

Mr. Ward: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Game Order 1982 (Public Notice No. 81/82), made by His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor under section 9 of the Game Act 1957, be and the same is hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed. S

TRAFFIC SIGNS REGULATIONS AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 17: Traffic Signs Regulations.

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1982, made by the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board under the provisions of sections 29 and 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1963, be and the same are hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

TRAFFIC SIGNS (SPEED LIMITS) REGULATIONS AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS 1982 — APPROVED.

The Governor: Item number 18: Speed Limit Regulations.

11, Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:— That the Traffic Signs (Speed Limits) Regulations and General Directions 1982, made by the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board under the provisions of sections 29 and 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1963, he and the same are hereby approved.

A Member: I beg to second.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

Game Order 1982—Approved. — Traffice Signs Regulations and General Directions 1982—Approved. — Traffic Signs (Speed Limits) Regulations and General Directions 1982—Approved. T1014 TYNWALD COURT, JUNE 15, 1982

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS — MOTION DEFERRED.

The Governor: Item number 19: Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, in view of the late hour and the fact that some of the members have been dozing this afternoon — (laughter) — I am hoping that the new members will get the chance to look at the Tynwald Agenda or Tynwald Hansard minutes of 15th April 1981; and that in the meantime I can get the chance, with my colleagues, who have agreed to asking this afternoon for an adjournment until next Tynwald in July, and 1 would beg to ask that the Court agree that we do adjourn this motion until the July sitting.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

The Governor: Hon. members, that concludes our business. The Council will now withdraw and leave the Keys to transact such business as Mr. Speaker may lay before them. Thank you very much. The Council withdrew.

HOUSE OF KEYS The Speaker: Hon. members of the House of Keys, the House will stand adjourned until Tuesday next, 22nd June, at 10.30 a.m. in our own Chamber. Thank you.

The House adjourned.

CORRIGENDUM.

TYNWALD COURT. Page T865 (May 19th, 1982), line 11. for "Mr. Crellin", please read "Mr. Simcocks".

Committee of Public Accounts—Motion Deferred. — House of Keys. — Corrigendum.