H O U S E O F K E Y S O F F I C I A L R E P O R T
R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Y C H I A R E A S F E E D
P R O C E E D I N G S
D A A L T Y N
HANSARD
Douglas, Tuesday, 3rd November 2015
All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:
www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard
Supplementary material provided subsequent to a sitting is also published to the website as a Hansard Appendix. Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted on application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.
Volume 133, No. 3
ISSN 1742-2264
Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2015 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Present:
The Speaker (Hon. S C Rodan) (Garff); The Chief Minister (Hon. A R Bell) (Ramsey); Mr G G Boot (Glenfaba); Mr L I Singer (Ramsey); Hon. W E Teare (Ayre); Mr A L Cannan (Michael); Mr R K Harmer (Peel); Mr P Karran, Mr Z Hall and Mr D J Quirk (Onchan); Hon. R H Quayle (Middle); Mr J R Houghton (Douglas North); Mrs K J Beecroft and Mr W M Malarkey (Douglas South); Mr C R Robertshaw (Douglas East); Hon. J P Shimmin and Mr C C Thomas (Douglas West); Hon. R A Ronan (Castletown); Mr G D Cregeen (Malew and Santon); Hon. J P Watterson and Hon. L D Skelly (Rushen); with Mr R I S Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald.
______66 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Business transacted
Leave of absence granted ...... 69 Procedural – Change to order of business ...... 69 1. Questions for Oral Answer...... 70 Question 1.4. not asked; Question 1.14. to be answered in writing ...... 70 1.1. Planning Committee membership – Necessary qualifications...... 70 1.2. Planning appeals – Investigation prior to decisions ...... 73 1.3. Animal waste – Checks to prevent illegal dumping ...... 77 1.4. Disposal of animal waste – Question not asked ...... 79 1.5. Energy from Waste Plant – Disposal costs ...... 79 1.6. Public sector pension arrangements – Whether appropriate ...... 84 1.7. Acting Attorney General post – Additional appointment ...... 86 1.8. Living wage – Plans for introduction ...... 88 Suspension of Standing Order 3.5.1(2) to take remaining Oral Questions – Motion lost ...... 91 Procedural – Questions 1.9 to 1.13, 1.15 to 1.16 deferred to next sitting ...... 92 2. Questions for Written Answer ...... 93 1.14. Work permits– Checks for breaches in law over last 24 months ...... 93 2.1. Manx Gas Ltd – Capital employed to supply gas to Manx public...... 94 Order of the Day ...... 95 4. Bill For Third Reading ...... 95 4.1. Audit (Amendment) Bill 2015 – Third Reading approved ...... 95 3. Bills For Second Reading ...... 96 3.1. Police (Amendment) Bill 2015 – Second Reading approved ...... 96 Police (Amendment) Bill 2015 – Referral to committee – Motion lost ...... 111 3.2. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill 2015 – Second Reading deferred ...... 116 Leave of absence granted ...... 116 4. Bill For Third Reading ...... 117 4.2. War Memorials Bill 2015 – Third Reading approved ...... 117 5. Leave to Introduce ...... 117 A Bill to establish an independent health regulator – Leave to introduce – Debate commenced ...... 117 The House adjourned at 1.03 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m...... 124 A Bill to establish an independent health regulator – Debate continued – Motion lost ...... 124 6. Election of a Member to the House of Keys Standing Orders Committee ...... 131 House of Keys Standing Orders Committee – Mr Malarkey elected ...... 131 The House adjourned at 3.03 p.m...... 131
______67 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
PAGE LEFT DELIBERATELY BLANK
______68 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
House of Keys
The House met at 10.00 a.m.
[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]
The Speaker: Moghrey mie, good morning, Hon. Members.
Members: Good morning, Mr Speaker. 5 The Speaker: The Chaplain will lead us in prayer.
PRAYERS The Chaplain of the House of Keys
Leave of absence granted
The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have given leave of absence to the Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare, for this afternoon, if we are still sitting to go off Island on Government business. Also leave has been given to Mr Gawne, who is away on Government business; and to the Hon. 10 Member for Douglas North, Mr Peake, who is similarly away.
Procedural – Change to order of business
The Speaker: Hon. Members, in order to allow the Treasury Minister to move the Third Reading of the Audit (Amendment) Bill today, I understand he would like the House to take the Bill immediately after Questions. Is the House content for this change to the order of business, please?
It was agreed.
15 The Speaker: Thank you very much.
______69 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
1. Questions for Oral Answer
Question 1.4. not asked; Question 1.14. to be answered in writing
The Speaker: Hon. Members, we now turn to Item 1 on the Order Paper, Questions for Oral Answer. With the agreement of the Member, Question 14 will be answered in writing, as the reply is complex and I understand Question 4 is not to be put.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
1.1. Planning Committee membership – Necessary qualifications
The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:
What skills, experience and qualifications are essential and desirable for members of the Planning Committee?
20 The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas to ask Question 1.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, what skills, experience and qualifications are essential and desirable for members of the Planning Committee? 25 The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Castletown, Mr Ronan.
The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The skills, experience and qualifications expected of potential members of the Planning 30 Committee are laid out in the applicant information packs, which I have arranged that all Tynwald Members should have received at the last sitting of Tynwald. I would summarise those requirements by saying we are looking for people with a wide range of backgrounds who know the Isle of Man and ideally have experience of interpreting and applying legislation and policy to reach decisions. They need to be rational, considered and able 35 to deal with complex situations, as the larger applications are rarely straightforward. There is also consideration for appointing within the range of experience on the overall Committee. We would ideally like to see experience in construction and economic development within the private and public sectors. As the closing date for applications was last week, Mr Speaker, and in the interest of fairness 40 to all potential applicants, it would be inappropriate to make further comment on the recruitment process until the process has been completed.
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Thomas.
45 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to the Minister for that reminder of the contents of the application pack.
______70 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
I could not help but notice that there was no mention of residency – the requirement for local residency in the application pack, as an essential characteristic. Members of the community in which I live and represent actually feel that is important. Can the Minister confirm 50 that we are looking for local candidates, and it is not something like the Financial Services Authority where international experience and international residence might be helpful?
The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Residency ideally, I suppose, yes, we are, but at the end of the day, we need the best 55 applicants to come forward.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.
Mr Quirk: Could I ask, as a former Chairman of the Planning Committee and to the Minister 60 for DEFA there, will there be a list of the current or proposed members’ interests? Will there be an interest list for members to declare their interests in all activities?
The Speaker: Minister to reply.
65 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am unsure on the criteria on that, and I will have to get back to the Member on that.
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Thomas.
70 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could not help but notice the stress on experience of planning and legislation in the Minister’s original Answer. Can the Minister advise whether he agrees with me that that experience is very important and it might well be derived from local authority planning experience, in which case might it not 75 be sensible to consider local authority members in this application process? And even, might it not be worthwhile, given that the nature of the Planning Committee is under discussion at the minute with a live consultation, might it not be interesting for the Minister to actually extend the term of the current members in recognition of their excellent in difficult times, while these issues are resolved? 80 The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not want to discuss individual applicants at this point, Mr Speaker, but I think the 85 Member for West Douglas points out that experience is very important – yes, it is. But what is important is that there has been a process, it has been widely advertised and the dates now are closed. I cannot really talk about the individual applicants at this time. You mention local government experience. Yes, of course, local government representatives do deal with planning applications on a weekly or fortnightly or monthly basis, whichever 90 authority they are, and they do have experience, but it is up to the individual applicants to apply.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw.
Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 95 Would the Minister agree with me in partial response to the Hon. Member for Onchan’s question about applicants’ interests, that in fact the form does, in its application – I think on page 2 – indicate that applicants are required to declare any potential conflicts in their application and state accordingly?
______71 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Speaker: Minister to reply. 100 The Minister: I thank the Chairman of Planning, Mr Robertshaw for pointing that out. In respect to conflicts, I am not sure – Mr Quirk was going on about the similar sort of criteria which are for local authorities’ pecuniary type of interests. So thank you to the Member for pointing that out. 105 The Speaker: Mr Quirk, Hon. Member.
Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the current Chairman of the Planning Committee for being helpful to the Minister. 110 Could I ask, is it not a vital role for any public office that a declaration of members’ interests on a committee is publicised and listed? Could I also ask as a supplementary to that too, there are a number of members on the Planning Committee – the concern I did have some years ago, to the Minister, would he not agree with me, is they all came up at once and they all came on at once? Do you think that is a 115 failing, when you need to sometimes refresh a committee which gets stale? Finally, could I just ask regarding the Planning Committee itself, which does have an independent Chairman, the Member for East Douglas, Mr Robertshaw – who is the political Minister or master for the Committee?
120 The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just touching on Mr Quirk’s point, yes, it is a vital role, and it is very important that it go through the scrutiny which any Government appointment goes through. 125 Just in respect to refreshing the committee, as the Member for Onchan will know, being an ex-Chairman, the appointments are done in blocks of three every, I believe, two and a half years. So in fairness, it is refreshed, so I do not think there is any room for manoeuvre on that, at the current … The political ‘master’ as you call it, the ultimate responsible for planning and appointments is 130 myself, sir.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen.
Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 135 Can the Minister confirm that if there is a non-resident member on the Committee, there will be no additional costs to the Committee for this position?
The Speaker: Minister.
140 Mr Ronan: I believe that is the case, yes – there is no additional cost.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to the Minister for widening out the terms of the 145 Question to include things like the chairmanship and the political direction. Given that experience is so important, will the Minister consider whether or not the political Member should actually be Chair of the Committee? Recently the Chairs have only been there for a year or so, so might it not be better to have a long-standing member of the Committee as Chair, with the political Member as a normal member? (Interjection by Mr Quirk) 150
______72 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Speaker: Minister.
The Minister: I think the Hon. Member for West Douglas is pointing, saying that there should be a non-political Chair. That is not the choice at this current time, but as the Member will be 155 aware, we are progressing the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill 2015, which will subsequently provide for the appointment of the Planning Committee going forward by the Council of Ministers, which the Member touched on before.
1.2. Planning appeals – Investigation prior to decisions
The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:
What investigation he carries out before deciding a planning appeal?
The Speaker: We turn to Question 2, Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas. 160 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, what investigation he carries out before deciding a planning appeal?
165 The Speaker: I call on the Minister to reply, Mr Ronan.
The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Hon. Member for West Douglas will be aware that in the case of an appeal, it is the function of the appointed independent planning inspector as set down in the Town and Country 170 Planning (Development Procedure) (No.2) Order 2013 as amended, to consider the application and any written submissions made with respect to it, before presenting their report to the Minister. The report contains their assessment and conclusions on those relevant matters pursuant to the application and provides a recommendation as to whether the appeal in respect of the 175 application should be granted or refused. Therefore, in accordance with article 8(8) of that 2013 Order, I consider the report of the planning inspector and either allow or dismiss the appeal, or reverse or vary any part of its decision, whether or not the appeal relates to that part. However, whilst that is what governs the procedural requirements under secondary legislation, there are also requirements under the primary legislation, the Town and Country 180 Planning Act 1999, for the Minister as the decision-maker. Section 10(4) of the Act states:
(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to- (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order, or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and (d) all other material considerations.
Finally, whilst I am unsure if this Question may relate to any recent decision I have made, please may I remind the Hon. Member for West Douglas and the House that in responding to
______73 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
any supplementary questions, I will be unable to comment on matters which might potentially 185 come before the courts.
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to the Minister for that summary of the legislation 190 and regulations. Does the Minister agree that it might be possible – it is possible in fact – for the Minister to choose to publish the inspector’s report on receipt, before he gets the advice from his political adviser on the decision he made, and that might well be helpful in allowing him to carry out his political role and his governmental role in deciding planning appeals? 195 The Speaker: Minister.
The Minister: I believe the Member is talking about a procedure which may happen in other jurisdictions. What I can say is that it is certainly within the Department and with my political 200 colleagues, we certainly have an open mind on where to go in respect to what the gentleman was just talking about, and we will certainly look into this.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.
205 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister then, when an appeal is to be decided, and a Minister or yourself or your Department has a conflict of interest, and it is then referred to another political Member, what are the criteria for that political Member to undertake, and where does that political Member get the advice from? 210 The Speaker: Reply, sir.
The Minister: First of all, if I can just take the last part of the question first, Mr Speaker, the advice: as the Member will be aware, we have a planning adviser who is independent of any 215 planning applications that have gone in. That adviser would give as much information to whoever has been delegated – if that is what you mean, a delegated decision – whoever has been delegated, as would be the same with myself, sir.
The Speaker: Hon. Member Mr Houghton. 220 Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Minister can advise – and if he is unable, if he can find out and circulate – what is the procedure when the Minister or acting Minister wishes to overturn the recommendation of the planning appeals inspector? Is he independently advised in his answer 225 that he gives in writing, as to the reason why he has overtaken such an appeal? Is that supported by independent advice from the Attorney General as far as the legal circumstances of him doing that? Does he also have support – written support, professional support, if you like – from the planning department, from a planning officer, in respect of again the reasons why he wishes to 230 overtake the appeal, so that that particular letter that he writes is a properly, professionally, legally worded document that hopefully is unlikely in most cases of being challenged by a court later with a petition of doleance?
The Speaker: Minister to reply. 235
______74 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will certainly do my best to answer this. The advice I have from the Attorney General’s office in clarifying that is in law it is clear that the inspector is not the decision-maker; it is the Minister who makes the decision and is therefore also subject the obligation to review material 240 considerations. In fairness, that is the same with the delegated Minister – exactly the same responsibility, where there would be a conflict. In respect to the written documentation, there is advice and there is support from officers in regard to any written submissions, which would follow a decision to reverse or otherwise in a planning decision. 245 The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister advise that the public perception might be that the current process is 250 duplicative or even triplicative, because three times Government has an input? In fact the public might perceive that it is perverse that the Minister, without the benefit of the site visit, without the benefit of discussion with the interested parties, actually has the final decision, when the independent inspector and the Planning Committee or the planning officers have had the benefit of much more engagement and involvement. 255 Secondly, given that the report from the independent inspector is only published with the Minister’s decision, can the Minister assure us that during the excellent planning review that is going on, the Whitaker Select Committee recommendations number 3, 4, and 5, about improving the petitions of doleance process in respect of planning will actually be considered in that review job, which are about giving the Minister the chance to refer things back to the 260 planning inspectorate and the like?
The Speaker: We seem to be broadening this out into a wide-ranging debate on planning procedures. The written Question is fairly specific. Minister. 265 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Certainly, the second part of the question, I would have to revert back to the Member, if he wants further information on that. Certainly in regard to the material based on any planning decision made, reviewing of plans 270 or site visits, I think what it clearly states is that the Minister can look at anything that is reasonable or also has material considerations in respect to that planning decision.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.
275 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the Minister not agree that obviously, as far as the final decision on a planning appeal, the Government should have the right in the national interest to be able to overrule the planning process? But would he not agree that that should be openly transparent and accountable to the general public (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) and how does he justify such processes, if it is true, where 280 we have a front room being turned into a hairdressing salon, to become an issue of national importance? Can he do a list of the cases in the last year where they have actually circumvented the planning process?
The Speaker: You need not answer in relation to any specific planning matter that may or 285 may not be concluded, Minister. (Interjections)
The Minister: No, Mr Speaker, I cannot anyway, at this point.
______75 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
I think, whatever case it is, it is basically in the public domain anyway because it is on public record. The final decision on planning appeals, as the Member for Onchan will know, is down to 290 the Minister, not the inspector; and I think it is important that it remains so, because that is what we are – we are here as decision makers. And ultimately we can dilute the system as much as we like but we must remember our role in here as well – and that is something I would not particularly want to see changed, Mr Speaker.
295 The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Quirk.
Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister then, in deciding a planning appeal – which is what the question is – what is the involvement of the Cabinet Office and also the Economic Development office? What 300 is that role? And, if it is delegated to a current Minister in the Cabinet Office who is conflicted, and it goes to another Member of the Department, how do you as a Minister have the final say?
Mr Karran: 305 Because it is the law.
The Speaker: Once again this subject is being broadened out. Minister, please reply as you see fit.
310 The Minister: Excuse me for my vagueness, but I am getting confused. I think the involvement of the Cabinet Office is none, sir. The decisions are made through the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture – myself. If a decision needs to be delegated that could in turn be delegated to the Minister for Policy and Reform, in the Cabinet Office, or ultimately could be delegated to another Minister or 315 another Member. That is the procedure and it seems to work well; but as the Member will know there is a review going on at the minute and we await the findings of that –
The Speaker: I will give a final supplementary. Mr Karran. 320 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the Shirveishagh not agree that we make the law in this House? Would he also not agree that we have allowed for this process in this House? Maybe some Hon. Members need not to nod things through so willingly in the future, if they have got 325 concerns with the process. But would he inform this House … will he circulate the last year’s decisions where the political interference has overruled; and can he give the criteria for national interest? How does a hairdressing salon in somebody’s front room –
330 The Speaker: Hon. Member, I have said I am not going to have a discussion of individual cases. Now, Minister, reference has been made to political interference (Interjections by Mr Karran) and you will probably want to take that into account. The question essentially is will you circulate a list of decisions? 335 The Minister: I think what is important is, we make the law – absolutely, we do – but we also have a responsibility to be clear and transparent in this place we cannot … and the Member knows I cannot answer questions that are ongoing at the time. (Interjection by Mr Karran)
______76 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Will I circulate? I believe that any decisions that are taken in planning, whether it be the 340 Minister or delegated, are available for public consumption anyway.
1.3. Animal waste – Checks to prevent illegal dumping
The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:
What recent checks have been carried out by his Department that there is no illegal dumping of animal waste?
The Speaker: Question 3, Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.
Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I would ask the Shirveishagh: what recent checks have been 345 carried out by his Department that there is no illegal dumping of animal waste?
The Speaker: I call on the Minister to reply, Mr Ronan.
The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 350 It is unclear from the Question if it is being asked with any particular type of animal waste in mind. However, I have consulted with officers in the relevant teams within the Department who are not aware of any illegal dumping of animal waste, or of any complaints alleging to such activity in the past six months; and no such investigations have been undertaken. However, over the last few years there have been pollution issues associated with animal 355 faeces getting into the rivers, and we have identified and dealt with these as part of our regular watercourse monitoring programme. I would, however, refer my hon. friend to the Answer provided to him in response to a similar Question in Tynwald on 21st July this year, in which I outlined the proactive measures adopted by the Department to control disposal of animal waste products. DEFA officers will, of course, 360 investigate any specific concerns that may have been brought to the attention of my hon. friend.
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Karran.
Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh, Vainstyr Loayreyder, for his reply, would the 365 Shirveishagh not agree that what we are talking about is the disposal of animal carcasses or parts of animal carcasses?
A Member: That is not what the Question says –
370 Mr Karran: What is the activity as far as the drivers who pick up such material for disposal by Litt’s? Is it not a fact that it has dropped considerably because there have been other ways of particular businesses getting rid of that waste, which could potentially be a public health risk? Would the Shirveishagh just do an investigation as far as that is concerned, before we have a public health incident? 375 The Speaker: Reply, sir.
The Minister: I think we have got to be careful here, because the collection of animal waste is of course done by the Department of Infrastructure, Mr Speaker. Our Department certainly are
______77 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
380 not aware, as I said in my Answer, of any problems with animal waste collection; and certainly no illegal dumping has been reported to our Department.
The Speaker: The Hon. Member, Mr Quirk.
385 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister, then, if another Department actually collects the material and goes to the AWPP plant, which is the Animal Waste Processing Plant – and it is not Litt’s anymore – can I ask the Minister, what checks he does with another Government Department to make sure that my hon. colleague from Onchan is correct? 390 You are responsible, Minister, for checking: what checks have you done with another Government Department?
The Speaker: Reply, sir.
395 The Minister: Checks, I assume, are regular. Communication is regular. As I say, sir, we have no reports of any problems in this area at all
The Speaker: Mr Karran.
400 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, like the previous question: would the Shirveishagh not consider checking the activity of the disposal route, as far as this waste product is concerned, in order to make sure that there has not been an increase in the disposal of it illegally in other ways, because of the charges that his Department has spearheaded, as far as this waste is concerned … so there is not a public health issue? 405 Would he also consider that – I am led to believe – there have been representations by some of the more sensible persons in the industry about other parties not doing this?
The Speaker: Minister.
410 The Minister: Well, Mr Speaker, if that is the case then we do not know about it. But what I will do on the back of that, I will double check with the Department of Infrastructure to check that is not the case. I think he also mentioned charges that my Department have brought in, regarding collection of animal waste: that is not my Department, sir, it is the Department of Infrastructure. 415 The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Member of the Department who was set up to answer that subsequent question was 420 surprised to learn that Question 4 had been withdrawn. But would the Minister agree with me that the ‘sensible people’ in the industry who made representation to the Department of Infrastructure are likely to have been met by sensible officers in the Department of Infrastructure? And I expect the Minister will be making some announcements very shortly in respect of 425 charges?
The Minister: I believe that is the case; and I think the process in respect of animal waste disposal is rigorous enough in the Isle of Man.
430 The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Quirk.
______78 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister, then: it is his responsibility for Environmental Health issues under his control – I am sure the Minister will endorse that. So, therefore, can I ask the Minister would 435 he enquire about the circumstances regarding animal waste dumping – which could be from farms and it could be from butchers? Therefore, can I ask the Minister if he would do some simple investigations with another Government Department, which requires a phone call?
440 The Speaker: Reply, sir.
The Minister: Certainly, on the back of this Question being tabled, which was obviously for last week and has been moved forward to this week, we have already done this –
445 A Member: What is the answer?
The Minister: But again, to clarify, I will make sure that the Hon. Member for Onchan – both Members – (A Member: All of us!) get written receipt of that supplementary, sir.
INFRASTRUCTURE
1.4. Disposal of animal waste – Question not asked
The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:
How much Isle of Man Meats pays for the disposal of animal waste?
[Question not asked.]
1.5. Energy from Waste Plant – Disposal costs
The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Quirk) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:
What the cost per ton is for the disposal at the energy plant from waste (SITA) (a) for domestic waste; and (b) for commercial waste?
450 The Speaker: Question 5, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.
Mr Quirk: I wish to ask the Minister, or the Member answering because the Minister is not in the House: what the cost per tonne is for the disposal at the Energy from Waste Plant, known as SITA for (a) domestic and (b) commercial? 455 The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Infrastructure – (Interjection by Mr Thomas) his spokesman, Mr Thomas. (Laughter)
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to the Member for this helpful Question. 460 The 2015-16 gate fee for disposal of waste at the Energy from Waste Facility operated by SITA is as follows: domestic waste, £79.50 per tonne; commercial waste, £162.50 per tonne.
______79 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Quirk.
Mr Quirk: Thank you, and I thank the Member for his brief Answer. 465 Could I ask the Member answering for the Department: the new structure that the Department of Infrastructure have actually put in place to credit local authorities with charges ... can the Member circulate the policy behind that, and the structural policy for charging? While I am on my feet, Mr Speaker, can I also ask as a supplementary as well: how does the Department monitor? Is it his duty to monitor the Energy from Waste Plant (EfW), to make sure 470 that the commercial waste that is going in is commercial – and there is a reference there to local authorities as well; and when it is domestic waste, it is domestic – whether it comes from a domestic user or the domestic side of the local authority?
The Speaker: I call on the Member to reply, Mr Thomas. 475 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and in fact there are many dimensions to the first question from the Hon. Member’s first supplementary. There is a local authority transition process ongoing, and I have the privilege to be leading in respect of a couple of aspects of that – housing and governance – and Minister Gawne is leading 480 in respect of waste management. As part of that, there have been three excellent meetings with local authority councillors, commissioners and officers from local authorities to actually consider all the issues identified. It would be premature for me to make any announcements, in fact, in relation to their conclusions. All I can say at this stage is that, currently, the escalator fee announced several years ago is 485 under review; that the basis on which local authorities and commercial waste providers are charged is under review, as announced when that escalator fee was introduced. Also, it is excellent that this policy is being developed in this open way and the Department has been pleased to share on a private and confidential basis, detailed information with this working group; and, as far as I am concerned, the results are excellent and we should be able to make 490 some significant announcements shortly.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member, for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey.
Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 495 Can I ask the Member answering the Question, if he could re-answer the Question as written down at number 5: what is the cost per tonne for the disposal at the energy plant from waste at SITA – not what the authority charges local authorities, but actually what the Department pays SITA? There is a marked difference between the two ways of answering this Question. What the 500 Hon. Member has done here is, he has answered the question of what they charge local authorities, but he is not actually telling us how much they are being charged by SITA. That is how I read the Question and that is the answer I would like, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Mr Robertshaw – I beg your pardon, Mr Thomas. 505 Mr Thomas: Thank you, very much, Mr Speaker. I believe I did actually answer the Question as written down; but I refer the Member asking back to the answer provided on 2nd December 2014 in Keys, when quite extensive information was provided about the SITA contract – and the income from gate fees, and the income from 510 electricity sales. Subsequently in the early part of 2015, Mr Hall in particular – and also Mr Karran – was very active in asking Questions in April Tynwald particularly, which would help the Member to have the detailed information that he has requested.
______80 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Most importantly, as I said, on a private and confidential basis, very much of the information 515 the Hon. Member has requested, is actually under discussion in this working group at the minute. It would be premature to actually release that, because it is confidential information; and the discussion between commissioners, officers of the local authorities, officers of the DOI and political Members of the DOI is very rich, and I hope that important announcements will be made soon about how the costs will be allocated between users, taxpayers, and potentially 520 ratepayers.
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Quirk.
Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker; and I thank the Hon. Member for South Douglas for 525 stealing the question I was going to ask towards the end! But could I just ask the Member answering – and I am not trying to catch the Member out, so I am quite happy if he will circulate the information on this as well – can he circulate this particular group that he has put together; what the terms of reference are for this particular group, and why – which I am led to believe – he has only introduced local authority members in 530 it and why not the Chamber, from the other side of the industry, in it? If we are to balance – would the Member not agree with me – a clear policy going forward from Government, it should have two sides of the coin in it – it should have industry and maybe local authorities and you then acting as the operator with SITA providing the service? I wonder whether the Member could actually say why the likes of the Chamber, or other 535 business interests, were not actually asked to go on that particular committee? And if he could name them or send me a list of them, I would be more than happy.
The Speaker: Mr Thomas.
540 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to Members for these helpful questions. I believe the working group’s terms of reference, and the membership, are likely to be circulable but I will ask the Minister to make sure those arrangements are made. Also, the information about the cost, which has already been provided on a strictly private and confidential basis to those Members, once it is agreed – because obviously it is a complicated 545 and controversial allocation which is involved, of capital costs and how you define usage, and so on – I am sure a summary or, if not, the whole of the information will be provided. I think the Member’s suggestion of further involvement in the working group might well be helpful, and I will take that back to the Department for consideration. This working group was originally envisaged and constituted in the context of local authority transition; but I guess the 550 Member makes a valuable point that commercial users are also using the facility, (Interjection by Mr Quirk) so I will encourage the Minister incorporate those into the final stages of the working group process.
The Speaker: Now, I have got four more supplementary questions. Please do not be 555 repetitive. Mr Karran, supplementary.
Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the acting Minister refresh himself back to 2002 as far as this whole sad affair is concerned, when the Government was hiding behind confidentiality, 560 which has a major effect as far as the disgraceful contract that we have at the present time? Are there any legal points to be able to actually lift the confidentiality, allowing for the fact that it had some 25 years to do, as far as that is concerned? Can the Member also enquire into the situation that the real costs are the original contract? Is this yet another example of that Government, which the Chief Minister was part of, being
______81 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
565 anti-business as far as this Island is concerned, by creating a toxic environment for commerce to work?
The Speaker: A matter of opinion, the second part of the question. Mr Thomas. 570 Mr Karran: It was a fact.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Waste management goes back to the 2000 Waste Management Strategy and Policy. 575 (Interjection by Mr Karran) It goes back a long way before that as well, and the first incinerator was proposed several decades before that. I do believe that over the recent six months, the amount of information shared in the local authority transition process, and in this House and in the other place, about the SITA contract is unprecedented; and I believe this process of open policy development is actually very helpful. I 580 support the Member in his encouragement of the Department, local authorities and now business working together to actually make sure that taxpayers, ratepayers and users have their contribution balanced.
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Cregeen. 585 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Member answering on behalf of the Minister give a date when the members of this working group were given this confidential information (Interjection) because I was aware up to only a number of weeks ago that one of the main issues that they were trying to get was what is 590 the cost of actually running the plant? (Mr Quirk: Transparent.) Would he not also agree that the Department has changed its tack on these working groups, because previously on the Waste Strategy it included the industry and the Chamber, and all the people involved – (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) so this working group is a change of policy to what the Government Department has done in the past? 595 The Speaker: Reply, sir.
Mr Thomas: Thank you. The presentation that I have in front of me – ‘Strictly Private and Confidential’ – is dated 19th 600 October, which I believe was the date of the third Local Authority Transition Working Group on Waste Management meeting. The Hon. Member also refers to another group – and this has to be seen separately, as this is a local authority transition group. I do take the Member’s point, as previous Members’, that there is some commonality between these processes, and I will encourage the Minister and the 605 Department to reinvestigate the membership and the structure of the concluding months of the negotiations.
The Speaker: Mr Malarkey, supplementary.
610 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Although the Member who is answering the questions on behalf of the Minister has answered a lot of what I was going to ask – and I appreciate the Member saying that this was brought to the House in 2014, at which time I was not in this House, so firstly could I ask him to re-circulate that information to me. I am delighted to hear that the Department has got a 615 working committee on that, but I would still go back and ask the Member why we cannot have the figures at present time – not the ones he is looking for, for the future – so that we have a
______82 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
benchmark to look at what the difference will be when he comes forward with the new agreement. I am asking what the gate fees are at this present time – not what we are going to come up 620 with, with a new committee; what today’s gate fees are, paid by the Department.
The Speaker: Mr Thomas, reply.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 625 It is a good question, and I will ask the Department to circulate to all Members a list of all of the Tynwald Answers that have ben provided about this. I will work with officers to actually make sure that as soon as possible, in conjunction with local authorities and perhaps also after consultation with other interested parties, brief consultation with other interested parties – that we can actually circulate historic information as well, alongside proposals, which I believe would 630 have been our intention in any case.
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Karran.
Mr Karran: Would the Member not agree that at the present time, the fees that are 635 transparent are something in the region of £5.1 million, as part of the ones that can be traced? But would the Shirveishagh, as a new Member of this House, not agree that the problem that we have here is once again the fact that we signed a commercially confidential agreement, and we are now held hostage to fortune to another crazy agreement that this system of government has allowed to develop over the last 20 years? 640 Would the Member not also agree that these costs of getting waste disposal are effective not just for local authorities, but that passes on to business, and is anti-business, as far as those costs are concerned? Will he go back to his Minister and ask for him, as a committed person to transparency, to actually reverse the decision of the disgraceful 25-year contract that was given – 645 The Speaker: Hon. Member, you have put your question. Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you very much. 650 There is information in the Pink Book and the Blue Book. (Interjection by Mr Karran) There is a lease – the amount of the lease has been provided. Previously in this place, the amount of the availability fee has actually been provided and broken down in the last few years. The gate fee is transparent, but I agree with the Member, as does the Minister, that it is helpful to take people with you, and the one way to take people with you is actually to share the 655 information, and that is why we set up the Local Authority Transition Waste Management Working Group. That is why we set up the Housing Working Groups, which are working very well in the west, the south, the north, and later this week I have even got an Eastern Housing Group, which is why it is working well, to actually have the new engagement with the Municipal Association. That is why we invited the Chamber of Commerce and TravelWatch and other 660 Members from outside the Department to join –
The Speaker: Hon. Member, I think you have answered the questions, thank you.
Mr Thomas: – the committee and agree with the Hon. Members, open development is the 665 way forward.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Quirk.
______83 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do thank the Member for answering the questions 670 here today, but is the Member not concerned that actually Government is giving an unfair advantage to businesses in the Island who are in the waste business? That is one question to you – an unfair advantage to businesses. And should – and it could be your opinion, too, sir – the local authorities who are involved in waste operations in the Isle of Man and are stuck because they have to provide it to a 675 destination within Government, would he not agree with me that there is a concern there that our ratepayers’ funds are being expended into activities where ratepayers’ funds should not be expended? Would he be prepared to look at that, or ask other organisations to look at it on his behalf?
680 The Speaker: Reply, sir.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Waste management, in all its dimensions – collection, processing, transfer – is actually very complicated, as the Member alludes to. In fact local authorities are not entirely constrained by 685 Government arrangements, but I take the main point that the Member made, which is that this process needs to be investigated, and that is exactly what is going on inside the waste management group, and the other parts of the local authority transition process.
Mr Quirk: Point of order, Mr Speaker. 690 I would not like the Member to get into trouble, but I think if you look at the Act, it does say that the Department says where the waste has to go, they are duty bound to deliver it.
A Member: Section 57.
695 The Speaker: Noted, thank you.
CHIEF MINISTER
1.6. Public sector pension arrangements – Whether appropriate
The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Chief Minister:
Whether public sector pension arrangements for MHKs and public sector workers are on an appropriate basis?
The Speaker: We move on to Question 6. Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan.
Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask the Chief Minister whether public sector pension arrangements for MHKs and public 700 sector workers are on an appropriate basis?
The Speaker: I call on the Chief Minister, the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Bell.
The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Mr Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member will recall, in 2014 705 the Public Sector Pensions Authority was tasked with undertaking a comprehensive valuation of the Government Unified Scheme, the Tynwald Members’ Pension Scheme, and other relevant pension schemes and, with the Pensions Working Group, report to Tynwald by December 2014
______84 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
on the feasibility of implementing further cost sharing and other measures to reduce the long- term liability in order to provide for a sustainable and fair pension scheme into the future. 710 In December 2014, the report was submitted to Tynwald. However, at that time, as the Hon. Member will recall, Tynwald chose only to receive the report, and after some considerable debate, the PSPA was charged in conjunction with the employee representatives to validate the figures used in the report and thereafter to consult and negotiate with employees and employers around the joint working group recommendations. 715 In July of this year, Tynwald passed a further motion which requires the PSPA to conclude the consultation and negotiation process by 31st December 2015, and for final proposals to be submitted to Tynwald for consideration in February 2016. Having been tasked with this work, I am aware that the PSPA is actively taking this review forward with all public sector workers, including members of the Unified Scheme, the Police, 720 teachers, and Members of Tynwald. I therefore feel confident that in February of next year, the PSPA will come forward with proposals for both the Unified Scheme and other public service schemes, and that at that time Tynwald will have ample opportunity to discuss those proposals and consider if in its view the proposed arrangements are appropriate. Therefore, given that the PSPA is due to report Tynwald in a little over three months’ time, I 725 believe at this stage it would be premature to comment on the appropriateness of public sector pensions until the PSPA has finalised and submitted its report to Tynwald for consideration.
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Cannan.
730 Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, I acknowledge the Chief Minister’s answers, but I am sure he will acknowledge that a number of factors continue to change when it comes to the rising liabilities of public sector pensions. Can I ask him, given the public sector pensions net bill to the public purse was estimated to 735 be £35 million in 2013, £46 million in 2014, does he have an update for us or has he been informed of what the bill is likely to be in 2015?
The Speaker: Chief Minister.
740 The Chief Minister: I do not have that information at the moment, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Mr Cannan.
Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 745 Can I ask the Chief Minister, then, whether he considers the rising liabilities and costs to be a threat to front-line services? And can he tell us when he last met with the Council of Ministers or his Minister for the Cabinet Office to actively consider this matter and receive a full update?
The Speaker: Chief Minister. 750 The Chief Minister: This obviously is an ongoing concern for every Member of Tynwald, the Council of Ministers and every backbencher, Mr Speaker, and if it is allowed to go unchecked, then it undoubtedly will pose a threat to our abilities to support the front-line services in the way we would wish. 755 I would just reiterate, there is extensive work taking place at the moment, and I hope that very shortly, as I have outlined in my Answer, Tynwald will have all the options in front of it, and we will be able to move forward quickly.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.
______85 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
760 Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that the figures were out there … the figures went up from something like a deficit of £60 million, without the income coming from contributions, to something like £160 million per year as far as it is concerned –
Mr Watterson: No, gross spend. 765 Mr Karran: – over a 10-year period? Would he also not agree that it is the responsibility of all Members to develop a strategy as far as how we do make this sustainable, and also to reassure Members that what has been promised under contract will be honoured, as far as future administration is concerned, but the 770 action needs to be taken sooner rather than later, in order to make sure that we have got a sustainable system?
The Speaker: Chief Minister.
775 The Chief Minister: I think that is exactly what I said, Mr Speaker.
1.7. Acting Attorney General post – Additional appointment
The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Houghton) to ask the Chief Minister:
Whether there has there been an appointment of a person to an additional post of Acting Attorney General; and if so what the particulars are of the appointment and salary or contract?
The Speaker: We turn now to Question 7, Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton.
Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 780 I beg leave to ask the Chief Minister, whether there has there been an appointment of a person to an additional post of Acting Attorney General; and if so what are the particulars of the appointment and salary or contract?
The Speaker: I call on the Chief Minister to reply. 785 The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Mr Speaker, there has not been any such appointment.
The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Houghton.
790 Mr Houghton: Mr Speaker, I would draw the Chief Minister’s attention then to that of a barrister in the United Kingdom, in the name of Mr Tim Green. It is mentioned in his Googled information sheet that he is ‘authorised to exercise the powers of the Isle of Man Attorney General in respect of a very significant multi-jurisdictional tax investigation’. Would the Chief Minister like to elaborate on that, please? 795 The Speaker: Chief Minister, are you in a position to elaborate?
The Chief Minister: Only in a very limited way, Mr Speaker. This situation arose while I was indisposed, while I was off ill earlier this year. I understand 800 that there was a serious criminal investigation underway and the Chief Constable, after taking
______86 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers considered there was a need to consider the appointment of external counsel, to advise the investigation. I understand that did take place, but he is not the Acting Attorney General.
805 The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Houghton.
Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Noting what the Chief Minister has just said, that of course the Government have appointed an external counsel – they do that on many occasions; they are doing that currently on the Isle 810 of Man’s Attorney General, at great and unnecessary cost. But returning back to this, I will read it again: this gentleman has been authorised with the powers of the Isle of Man Attorney General. Now, that is not external counsel, Mr Speaker. That is appointed powers. It is a different point. (A Member: Delegation.) What does the Chief Minister have to say about that? 815 The Chief Minister: I can only repeat what I have already said, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Mr Houghton, I must caution you, of course, there is an ongoing legal situation with the current Attorney General, so references to the Acting Attorney General or the current 820 Attorney General must be very cautious.
Mr Houghton: I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker. My final supplementary then in respect of this is: may I ask that the Chief Minister find out precisely what the particulars of this post are – because this does not relate to what the Speaker 825 has just advised – what this is, what the salary is, or what the contractual arrangements are, because it states – and this gentleman will know how to word his own document – that he has the powers of the Isle of Man Attorney General. That is not extended powers under other arrangements that happen on a number of occasions elsewhere. So if the Chief Minister would like to clear that up, otherwise we will have to put another 830 Question down and find that out, Mr Speaker, because it is vitally important that the public knows what is going on here – and none of us were aware, Mr Speaker –
The Speaker: Your question has been put.
835 Mr Houghton: –that there was a third Attorney General!
The Speaker: Your question has been put.
The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to answer this 840 Question. There is no third Acting Attorney General. That has not been appointed. Mr Houghton knows full well, as he has just stated that on occasions, the Attorney General’s Chambers or the Chief Constable takes external advice on specific issues. This is exactly what happened at this time. The document that he refers to is inaccurate in its comments. He is not the Acting Attorney 845 General. This individual was brought in specifically to advise on one very complicated inter- jurisdictional, international criminal offence and it goes no further than that.
Mr Houghton: Mr Speaker, a point of order. It states here that he exercises the powers; not advises on, as the Chief Minister states. There 850 are two different issues here –
The Speaker: Hon. Member!
______87 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Mr Quirk: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
855 The Speaker: Hon. Member, the Question has been answered. I am moving on to Question 8.
Mr Houghton: Thank you.
1.8. Living wage – Plans for introduction
The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister:
What plans he has to define and introduce a living wage in the Isle of Man?
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.
860 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, what plans has the Ard-shirveishagh to define and introduce a living wage in the Isle of Man?
The Speaker: I call on the Chief Minister to reply.
865 The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Mr Speaker, I am sure that we are all aware of the developments in the United Kingdom in relation to the living wage, notably the UK Government’s announcement in July that it would introduce a national living wage. This is separate from the rate promoted by the Living Wage Foundation, an independent not-for-profit organisation, which is calculated based upon its assessment of the UK cost of living. 870 I am conscious that the UK government’s announcement has taken many by surprise and has provoked debate about the potential implications. Mr Speaker, I think it is important that we act in the Island’s interests, in a considered manner, and not merely copy the actions of our neighbours. (A Member: Hear, hear.) The Department of Economic Development is considering these developments in the UK. The 875 introduction of a living wage would be a significant step and requires widespread consultation, including representatives of both employers and employees, in order to understand its implications, not least the economic impact of such a move. We must always be mindful of the need to balance the needs of our economy with responsibility to protect the vulnerable of the Island. I can confirm to Hon. Members, however, 880 that proposals to make significant increases to the minimum wage rate will be put before this month’s sitting of Tynwald and with Hon. Members’ approval, the hourly rate for employees aged 21 and over will increase by 35 pence, from £6.65 to £7 per hour and will be in effect from 1st January 2016.
885 The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Karran.
Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh agree that we have led a proud record as far as the issue of the low wage, the minimum wage is concerned, and the time has come for his administration to keep that proud record, as far as looking after minimum wage workers, by 890 bringing in a living wage, maybe at the £8.50, allowing for the fact that living in the Isle of Man is a very expensive for the ordinary people and low tax is just purely academic for them?
The Speaker: Chief Minister.
______88 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
895 The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, protecting the vulnerable has been at the very core of the strategy of this administration for the last four years. I fully agree with the comments of the Isle of Man’s good record over the last few years, being ahead of the United Kingdom for most of that period in terms of the minimum wage levels. The minimum wage has not been the disaster it was painted when it was first suggested (Mr 900 Karran: Hear, hear.) that we put it forward. It has helped many, many people on low incomes. But we have to be very careful about this, that the minimum wage does not become the default position for many employers – that we do not end up driving wages down by having the minimum wage at the wrong position. So there is a lot of work to be put into this, Mr Speaker. I believe the announcement I have 905 made, which I hope will be ratified by Tynwald next month, of a £7 minimum wage for over-21s at 1st January will be welcome. It is worth pointing out that from 1st April 2016, the UK, as they call it, ‘national living wage’ will be £7.20 but that is for aged over 25, so the UK increase will not apply to those under 25s. So the Isle of Man in some respects are already ahead of the UK.
910 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw.
Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Chief Minister might be pleased, following his note that he just passed to me, that the question I am going to ask will not be particularly long. 915 Would the Chief Minister wish to join me in commending the Minimum Wage Committee for their report this year, which has been particularly comprehensive and well balanced and does try to embrace the issues that concern a living wage? I have in the past been critical of some of their work, but this year I think it has been particularly worthwhile, and something that Members will wish to consider. 920 Taking that report into account and the complexity of the issues surrounding the concept of a living wage as described in the report, and the importance that must be attached to Government showing leadership in this area, would the Chief Minister be willing to give consideration to asking the newly formed NEDC to deliberate on two things: (a) a clear definition of what level a Manx national living wage might be set at in the future; and (b) whether 925 Government should lead the way by insisting that its contracts in the future with private-sector companies must incorporate a provision that ensures that the staff so employed within those contracts be paid such a Manx national living wage?
The Speaker: Chief Minister to reply. 930 The Chief Minister: I thank the Hon. Member for his interesting question, Mr Speaker. I would agree with him that the work put in by the Minimum Wage Committee of late has been a far deeper assessment of the situation than perhaps we have had in the past, and I think that is absolutely essential as we move forward. 935 We also need to be very careful that we do not get caught up in the political debate which is taking place in UK, which is entirely driven by politics rather than economic need of the workforce. The national living wage as it operates in the UK at the moment, I understand is on an entirely voluntary basis. It is not compulsory, and I think it is possible that if we can identify what would be deemed as an acceptable national living wage for the Isle of Man, at least to 940 begin the exercise, we may follow the UK by setting that as an aspiration for employers on the Island who wish to treat their workforce in an equitable manner. I have had provisional discussions with our economic advisers to see how the best way we can go forward is on this, and fuel poverty obviously is another area which needs to be brought into this particular equation. I hope this work will continue apace in the near future. 945 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.
______89 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to hear that the Chief Minister is in favour of a definition of a living wage and of fuel poverty. I am really, really pleased to hear that. 950 Would he agree though that the evidence shows to date, of the more pioneering companies in the UK who have adopted a living wage and who broadcast the fact that they are paying a living wage, that the morale within those companies has gone up exponentially and it achieves an awful lot greater productivity than companies that simply pay the living wage? So even if it was brought in on a voluntary basis to start with, those companies that advertise that they 955 would pay at least a living wage would attract people and would have a better productivity and help the Manx economy.
The Speaker: Chief Minister.
960 The Chief Minister: I agree entirely with the Hon. Member. I think there is extensive evidence right across the UK where a living wage has been paid, morale and in particular, productivity has gone up. We also need to be aware, of course, in the Isle of Man that we have a labour shortage. We only have 1.7% unemployed and there is, in some areas at least, a degree of competition 965 between employers to get the best quality staff to work for them. If those companies are publicly committed to paying a living wage, the chances are that they are going to have a much better chance to get the workforce that they need, rather than as some of them are at the moment, struggling to get the numbers to keep the company viable.
970 The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Quirk.
Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Chief Minister regarding what sort of discussions he has had with the business industry side of the economy? 975 Could I also ask too, regarding the living wage, would he not agree with me, one of the ways forward to look at this – as discussion came from the Member Chris Robertshaw regarding contracts and so forth – one of the issues, would the Chief Minister support me, is that some contracts actually specified from Treasury on the procurement side that those goods and services were provided from the Island – would that not assist business to actually achieve those 980 expectations?
The Speaker: Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister: That is a long question, Mr Speaker. I think as far as identifying to would- 985 be suppliers to Government that all goods have to come on the Island, that needs a great deal more thought than just a simple question like that, because it is not always possible to get goods on the Island to provide some of these services. We also obviously, in the middle of all this, have to look after the interests of the taxpayers. Taxpayers have to get value for money in the services and goods that they obtain, but in a 990 general sense, it has always been Government’s policy to encourage a ‘buy local’ strategy, right across Government, and indeed right across the economy, and that continues.
Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.
995 The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.
Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the Shirveishagh not agree that it is great to see a movement on this front, as far as the low paid is concerned; but what actions is this Government
______90 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
going to take for those young people who do no have a stable home basis, who cannot afford to 1000 live on the minimum wage and be able to rent in the private sector, allowing for the fact that they are entitled to I think it is £105 a week income support towards their accommodation costs. Will he look into the issue of how we make it so that it is possible for these people to be able to get off benefit and be able to live sustainably, as far as the present minimum wage is concerned? 1005 And will he also clarify, when are we going to see the definition of fuel poverty, which will be a major factor as far as the acceptable level as far as the minimum wage that people should be living on, if we are a caring and prosperous society?
The Speaker: Chief Minister. 1010 The Chief Minister: Work continues across Government and particularly in Treasury, through Social Security, Mr Speaker, to find way to get people off benefits. It has to be immensely more beneficial to individuals to be working than to be sitting at home drawing benefits, and the initiatives which Government has taken over the last few months, to stimulate more economic 1015 activity, to create more jobs to grow the economy, has to be the best way of ultimately leading people away from unemployment and back into a fulfilling and satisfying career in future. I understand it the generally accepted term of fuel poverty is for people who are paying more than 10% of their salaries or incomes on energy of some source.
Suspension of Standing Order 3.5.1(2) to take remaining Oral Questions – Motion lost
1020 The Speaker: Hon. Members, we have reached the end of allotted –
Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder –
The Speaker: Mr Karran. 1025 Mr Karran: I beg to move:
That Standing Order 3.5.1(2) be suspended to permit the remaining Questions for Oral Answer to be taken at this sitting.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Michael.
Mr Cannan: Pleased to second, Mr Speaker. 1030 The Speaker: I put the question: Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The noes have it. Division called – 16 votes required to suspend Standing Orders.
A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Robertshaw Mr Cregeen Mr Ronan Mr Harmer Mr Shimmin Mr Karran Mr Skelly
______91 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Mr Malarkey Mr Teare Mr Quirk Mr Watterson Mr Singer The Speaker Mr Thomas
The Speaker: With 11 votes for, 8 against, the motion therefore fails to carry.
Procedural – Questions 1.9 to 1.13, 1.15 to 1.16 deferred to next sitting 1035 The Speaker: I therefore ask the Hon. Member for Michael in relation to Questions 9 and 10, whether he would like them held over to next week or answered in writing.
Mr Cannan: Next week, please, Mr Speaker. 1040 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, in relation to Questions 11, 13 and 16?
Mr Karran: Next week.
1045 The Speaker: Next week. Mr Singer, in relation to Question 12?
Mr Singer: Next week, please.
The Speaker: Next week. And Mr Thomas, in relation to Question 15? 1050 Mr Thomas: Next week, please, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Members. There is one Question for Written Answer and Question 14 will be answered in writing, as I 1055 have already indicated. The replies will be distributed.
______92 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
2. Questions for Written Answer
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1.14. Work permits– Checks for breaches in law over last 24 months
The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:
How many checks in each of the last 24 months were carried out in work places to establish whether workers had work permits; and how many breaches of the work permit law were discovered?
The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): The Department’s Employment Inspectors inspect workplaces to ensure compliance with employment law in a number of areas including work permits, the minimum wage, and provision of written statements and pay 1060 statements. It should therefore be noted that the Department records statistics on breaches relating to all those areas, rather than work permits individually. The table below is based upon research undertaken to identify work permit breaches solely, but due to time constraints it may not be completely exhaustive.
Inspections by Breaches of work Employment Services permit law identified Inspectorate October 18 1 November 29 0 2013 December 12 0 January 34 1 February 32 1 March 33 7 April 27 0 May 15 0 June 20 0 July 15 3 2014 August 10 0 September 11 0 October 16 2 November 9 2 December 7 7 January 6 0 February 11 0 March 21 1 April 16 0 May 9 1 2015 June 15 1 July 22 1 August 21 1 September 13 0
______93 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
TREASURY
2.1. Manx Gas Ltd – Capital employed to supply gas to Manx public
The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:
What physical capital Manx Gas Ltd has employed to supply gas to the Manx public; and what the most recent financial valuation of this employed capital is?
The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): The Hon. Member will be aware from when he 1065 was the Vice-Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that Manx Gas Ltd, under the Regulatory Agreement signed earlier this year, are required to supply the OFT with their audited accounts each year commencing with the year ended 31st December 2015. The 2014 accounts, which include the valuation of the physical assets of Manx Gas Ltd, were voluntarily supplied to OFT under commercial confidentiality and were shared with Treasury officers on the same basis. 1070 The company’s audited accounts will form the basis of the calculation of the Modified Asset Value deployed in the gas supply business and thus determine the monetary value of 9.99% Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) for the lifetime of the agreement. Manx Gas have confirmed that they will comply with the regulatory agreement and provide access to all the information to both OFT and Treasury for scrutiny, to ensure compliance with the agreement. 1075 By way of further information it is worth noting that whereas Manx Gas makes a contribution towards the capital cost of the high pressure gas supply pipeline, which is primarily used by the Pulrose power station, as Manx Gas is the sole user for the gas network extension, the Manx Utilities Authority does recover the agreed capital cost of the extension through annual charges to the company over a 40-year period. 1080
______94 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Order of the Day
4. BILL FOR THIRD READING
4.1. Audit (Amendment) Bill 2015 – Third Reading approved
Mr Teare to move:
That the Audit (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read a third time.
The Speaker: In accordance with your agreement, we deal with the Third Reading of the Audit (Amendment) Bill at this stage, and I call on the mover, Hon. Member, Mr Teare. 1085 Mr Teare: Thank you, sir, and I would like to thank this Hon. House for its agreement to take this out of order with the Order Paper. I really do appreciate that. I consider this to be a very positive piece of legislation. The Bill will enable Treasury to implement a more proportionate approach to financial governance across the public sector, 1090 based on a three-tier level of external inspection of financial statements, namely either full audit, assurance review or independent examination, as deemed appropriate, with the default being full audit. Whilst Treasury has previously used its existing powers to create subordinate legislation to implement just such a proportionate approach to the local government sector, this Bill promotes 1095 those principles into the primary legislation itself, making the relevant rights and responsibilities under the framework clearer and more explicit to all concerned. The Bill expands this proportionate approach to allow the Treasury to apply it to any relevant body currently required to be audited, in accordance with the Audit Act and it is Treasury's intention in particular to now apply the revised assurance framework to the burial authorities. 1100 The Bill also amends the burial authorities’ accounting period to change their year from 31st December to 31st March, which it is anticipated will ease their annual financial timetable. Mr Speaker, if we are able to obtain Royal Assent, and if we are able to announce it to another place before the end of this calendar year, then I am pleased to confirm that this will come into force with effect from 1st January. That would save the local burial authorities from a 1105 further year of their current audit regime, so it is another step to make things simpler and it is another step to save costs. So, Mr Speaker, with that I would like to thank the Hon. Members for their support of this Bill, and also my seconder who has stood with me during the three previous times that this Bill has been before this Hon. House. 1110 I beg to move that the Audit (Amendment) Bill 2015 now be read for the third time, sir.
Mr Watterson: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Mr Quirk, Hon. Member. 1115 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to echo the sentiments of Mr Teare. I will be giving it a fair wind. If there is anything I can do to get the Appointed Day Order done for you, sir, I am here. I know I have wandered off the subject matter a little bit, Mr Speaker, but there were reasons 1120 for it, which may come to light in the future, I hope.
______95 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Speaker: Mover to reply, Mr Teare.
Mr Teare: I would like to thank Mr Quirk for his supportive comments, and also the way that 1125 he has directed his questions during the Second Reading and especially in the clauses stage. It is very helpful, and through that I was able to deal with various issues that had come up and it gave me the opportunity to give further clarification. So with that, sir, I beg to move that the Third Reading of this legislation now be taken.
1130 The Speaker: Hon. Members, I put the motion that the Audit (Amendment) Bill be read for the third time. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
3. BILLS FOR SECOND READING
3.1. Police (Amendment) Bill 2015 – Second Reading approved
Mr Watterson to move:
That the Police (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read a second time.
The Speaker: We turn to Item3, Bills for Second Reading, starting with the Police (Amendment) Bill 2015, and I call on the mover, the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson. 1135 Mr Watterson: Mr Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to address three matters: firstly to clarify the law so that it is clear a serving Chief Constable may be reappointed by the Department for a further term of office without having to go through the full advertisement, selection and interview process associated with initial appointments. 1140 Secondly, to enable the Department to contract out functions of the Constabulary currently performed by police officers: the aim is to get best value for money and to free up police officers to perform their key frontline policing roles. In the event these provisions are approved by Hon. Members and enacted, it is considered less likely key frontline policing functions will have to be either discontinued or re-modelled. 1145 In order for functions to be contracted out and staff designated to perform contracted functions, the Department must make an Order and seek the approval of Tynwald. Schedule 1 to the Bill will insert a new schedule 2A into the Police Powers and Procedures Act 1998, and will enable the Chief Constable to designate suitably qualified and trained contracted persons to perform any or all of the functions specified in an order approved by Tynwald. 1150 Contracted staff may be given such powers that a police officer would have, as are necessary to enable that member of staff to perform a particular contracted function. The schedule sets out in further detail in relation to the matter, including powers of, complaints in relation to and offences against contracted staff. Mr Speaker, it is consider that the jailer functions of the custody suite are immediately the 1155 most suitable functions to be contracted out and could free up up to six constables, and so potentially avoid further reductions in the number of police officers available for front-line policing. However, let me assure Hon. Members that when a member of the public calls the Police, they will always get the Police. The third matter is in respect of police complaints. These amendments do two key things: 1160 firstly, they seek to address international and human rights requirements that incidents where death or serious injury occurs following contact with the Police should be properly investigated.
______96 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The provisions in the schedule also empower the Chief Constable to refer other serious matters that may be specified in regulations for investigation. If the Police Complaints Commissioner considers a specified matter should be referred but the Chief Constable does not 1165 refer the matter, then the Commissioner may direct the Chief Constable to do so. Secondly, the way that police performance and conduct is addressed has been changed. Bad conduct is no longer dealt with by means of disciplinary ‘charges’ being laid out, but by referring an officer to disciplinary ‘proceedings’, under the Police Conduct Regulations. Where a police officer is not performing or has been the subject of a complaint or a matter has been referred 1170 for investigation and it is evident an officer’s performance is in question, then that officer may be referred to disciplinary action under the Police Performance Regulations. As the legislation in schedule 1 to the Police Act currently refers to disciplinary charges, the Bill’s purpose is therefore to change those references so that they now provide for matters concerning an officer to be referred to disciplinary proceedings. 1175 Mr Speaker, I have outlined the principles behind this short Bill and its main features, and I beg to move that the Police (Amendment) Bill be read a second time.
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Thomas.
1180 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: I call the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton.
1185 Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister rightly states, there are three matters or subjects in this Amendment Bill. As he states, one is the appointment of the Chief Constable; one is the police complaints issue as the Minister has just explained; and then the third one, which is the contracting out functions set out in the Bill. 1190 Now, I have no issues with the Chief Constable’s appointment procedures as in primary legislation, or anything to do with the police complaints. But Hon. Members, I have very, very serious issues with that of contracting out functions. Now, if I can just clear to one side the issues do with one of the easiest targets for the Department of Home Affairs, which I would reasonably allow and support: that of the custody 1195 operations being privatised. I would understand and support that and indeed, Mr Speaker, if in this Bill it showed that we want to privatise the custody functions, for the reasons that have been given and stated that in the Bill, then I would be comfortable with that, quite comfortable with that in the primary legislation. To assist Hon. Members’ understanding of that, the reasons why I would support an issue to 1200 do with this in primary legislation is of course, under the Police Powers and Procedures Act, there are arrangements in that Act where sergeants must control and operate under functions set out in a previous Act, in respect of the functions required in a custody unit. So, that is fine and I would be fine about part of the legislative changes in that. But, no! The Bills goes much wider than that and this is the serious issue that I would ask 1205 Hon. Members to look at. This Bill allows for any core police function to be privatised in the future.
Mr Watterson: With Tynwald approval.
1210 Mr Houghton: With Tynwald approval. But, the Hon. Member, quite rightly, may decide a comment there and that helps me enormously to point out what the issues are there. If this Hon. House and then Tynwald approves this Bill and it is enacted, it shows that this House supported that, at some point and
______97 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
time in the future, any core police activity could be privatised, because that was the will of the 1215 House, if it approves this Bill. That is the main point of that. Yes, Tynwald would approve secondary legislation, as set out clearly in the Bill. But I would just like to go through one or two issues in the Bill, Mr Speaker, just so that Hon. Members have a clear thought of where I am coming from on this. If I turn to page 6, section 4: Police powers for contracted staff, at subsection (1):
This section has effect for the purpose of enabling the Department to enter into a contract
1220 – which is what the Minister is saying –
for the supply by that person of services in assistance of the police force.
Right, okay.
The Department may by order provide for conferring or imposing powers and duties specified in the order, being powers and duties of a member of the police force, on persons, not being members of the police force …
So, what we are doing is, in just that section alone, appointing with the secondary legislation in order – if it goes through – an officer, a private person, a private contractor, whichever one you want to word, a private person, to carry out the functions of a police officer. Now, if it said 1225 ‘custody suite’, fine, like I have already said. But it does not; it covers the wider core functions. And it goes on to say, in subsection (3):
An order under this section shall specify — (a) the functions which may be assigned …
It goes on to go on about the title of its contracted staff, etc. It goes on about really setting contracted people into the core issue of being a constable. So, what we have got is cheap policing; half-priced policing. Very serious. It is going too far, Mr Speaker. 1230 Subsection (4):
An order under this section may under subsection (3)(a) specify functions which, apart from the order, would be reserved to a member of the police force.
I will just go on to point out, Mr Speaker, because the proof of this pudding, for the want of a better word, is in the first Schedule: Schedule 1 of this Bill. And section 2 of Schedule 1: Powers and duties of contracted staff.
(1) A contracted person authorised or required to do anything by virtue of a designation —
Contracted to do anything by virtue of a designation. So a non-police officer can do anything. 1235 (Mr Watterson: No.) As it states. (Mr Watterson: No.) It states!
Mr Watterson: It has to be specified in the Order.
Mr Houghton: The Order follows the will of this Hon. House. 1240 Mr Watterson: That is right.
Mr Houghton: That is the serious issue of this matter. We are supporting doing away with policing as we know it, to private security people doing policing work. 1245 In subsection (2), Mr Speaker, and if I can ask Hon. Members who are following this, in subsection (2), half way down through that clause it goes on about:
______98 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
… any person exercising that power in reliance on that designation shall have the same entitlement as a constable to use reasonable force.
So, what we are saying is, ‘We are going to send security officials out to disruptions and fights and things like this –
1250 Mr Watterson: No, we are not.
Mr Houghton: – to deal with that. That is what is says.
Mr Watterson: It is not what it says. 1255 Mr Houghton: Mr Speaker, I go on to say, because this is the point I am going to get to in a minute, Mr Speaker, which hopefully should disturb Hon. Members. Subsection (3):
Where any power exercisable by any person in reliance on his or her designation under this section includes power to use force to enter any premises, that power shall not be exercisable by that person except — (a) in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable;
Now, what this means, Hon. Members, is – and this is always very serious – when the Police have to raid someone’s property, they have to have a warrant. It is as simple as that: they have 1260 to have a warrant in order to do that. It is a very serious matter: breaking into a person’s home, which is his castle. Very serious, core, bottom-line, serious issue, but it is giving you a hint that they are going to have these security persons, these contracted staff, to have the powers to go into, to break into premises, exercising a warrant. Now, Hon. Members, this was not envisaged in this Bill. We all thought this Bill was to do 1265 with non-core policing. This is core policing right to the root of it. Now, the Minister, in his defence, may say, ‘Yes but, Mr Houghton, you did read out subsection (3)(a)’ of what I have just read out, which includes the power of the force to enter any premises, that power shall not be exercisable by that person except he is in the company or under the supervision of a constable. Now then, that constable could be two days in service. He 1270 could be a police officer just arrived, a probationer, and he is going out with a bunch of security men to exercise a warrant and break into someone’s house. I am sorry, Mr Speaker! I went to raids on properties, as a special constable, but I was only very much in the background, because (a) of my knowledge, I was a special constable and (b) it was a serious matter, so you had senior police officers, usually senior detectives who were carrying out that 1275 warrant to enter those premises. Senior detectives and officers and those detectives have to be supported by uniform: constables, etc. Not a bunch of security men, breaking into someone’s house, up in the sticks, with a PC that has only got a couple of days, two or three days’ thing in it. And, even if they have a constable, that is wrong. It is so serious, it should have been a sergeant or above. 1280 So, it is flawed and it is very serious and we must remember, if we give the go-ahead for this Bill to go forward in its present format, what we are saying to the Department is, ‘Yes, we agree with those functions.’ And especially when I am pointing it out now and making it quite clear. Now that is very serious, Mr Speaker. That alone really should kill this Bill off and then he can take his other matters out of the Bill and put them in something else that is more appropriate. 1285 Mr Speaker, it goes on about further functions, but I think on that most serious point, I have made my point as far as Hon. Members are concerned. Now, Mr Speaker, I am going to be voting against this Bill, yet I support those other two matters that I made clear, that are nothing to do with contracted persons. I will ask Hon. Members to vote against this Bill. Please hear what I am saying. I have a little bit of experience in 1290 this area to properly advise you. The matter for the Minister, who does not have that experience, who has not got the experience of policing work. Only a senior police officer must
______99 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
do these functions, head up these functions. Only a senior police officer and that is the underlying issue here. There are one or two other things of lesser importance in the Bill, but which do make my 1295 blood boil on issues and that is, this document refers to the police force. ‘Police force’, Hon. Members, is a slang word for the Isle of Man Constabulary. The Isle of Man Constabulary is the police force. Now, when we are talking about police force as a throw-away slang remark, that is fine, but not in primary legislation and it goes on about ‘police force’, ‘police force’, ‘police force’! 1300 I would ask the Minister if he would like to advise me as to who drafted this Bill, because we know that certain Government Bills, same in my Department, are being drafted outside the Isle of Man by people who do not really understand or have never heard of the Isle of Man Constabulary. So it should, every section here, when it goes on about ‘police forces’ should say … I might be 1305 nit-picking but, if I am nit-picking, I will nit-pick on something else. This Bill has not been properly proof-read. Why is that, Mr Houghton? I can take Members to the top of page 11, subsection (5), last couple of lines, going on about:
… a power exercisable by a contracted person –
Mr Watterson: Where are you?
1310 Mr Houghton: –
in reliance on his or her designation shall exercisable only by a person wearing such uniform as may be —
There is a typo there. Mr Speaker, I have read the Bill, because I have had to. It something, okay, I have an interest in, because what I do have an interest in, in policing, is the protection of all people on our Isle of Man. The Chief Constable is head of security on that and we are reducing his abilities by bringing 1315 this Bill in and he has been made to, no doubt, support it and so on. But there is a typo in the Bill. What is going on here? Do people not read what they move in this hon. place? It is easy to miss out but I am sorry what is happening more and more is people are not doing their jobs. Sitting and reading and going through that legislation. Mr Speaker, I remember … I have very great respect for the Hon. Madam President. When 1320 she was the Minister of Health and Social Security, all those years ago, when we did legislation and we had a Mental Health Bill at that time, we went through for hours and hours at the Department, line by line – and the Hon. Mr Karran was there, as a Member for Health at that time. We went through line by line until everybody was absolutely happy. And we found little errors, we altered them, because we all sat there, in the Department, doing just that: legislation. 1325 I wonder whether this Bill has been gone through line by line –
Mr Watterson: It certainly has.
Mr Houghton: – in the Department of Home Affairs, because the Minister has got some very 1330 good support in there. One of those is a very able body, Mr Thomas, who picks anything up and he is excellent at his homework. I have to give him that and he catches people out; me also and I thank him for that, because we are all here to help each other. Not just catching someone out; it is to say, ‘Mr Houghton, just read that again. Top and tail this.’ ‘Thank you, very much, Chris. Thank you, for your advice.’ And that is what has not happened in this Bill, because when we are 1335 going on about ‘police forces’ and missing things out on typos, I then wonder, has there been any real thought on the functions that you, the Department, wish to change and bring forward on this Island? This is very seriously flawed legislation, Mr Speaker. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
______100 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
It attacks or, if you like, it says in it that it intends, by Tynwald regulation later, to interfere 1340 with core police functions. Do we want a second class police force here? I do not think so. (A Member: Constabulary.) Wouldn’t that do us some massive reputational damage, Mr Bell? Wouldn’t that, Mr Speaker? Reputational damage. A bunch of hillbilly cops. That is what will happen within 10 years of this going through. I am telling you. So serious.
1345 The Speaker: Now, Mr Houghton, you may consider that you have made your points with great force and candour – (Laughter)
Mr Houghton: And I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. Perhaps, I am a little bit impassioned, but I do read … Mr Speaker, whatever any Members thinks about me – 1350 Mr Karran: He has a right to say what he wants –
The Speaker: Hon. Member, of course Members will be given full rights (Mr Karran: Good.) by the Chair and the Chair does not require reminding of that right (A Member: Hear, hear.) of 1355 Members to speak. Mr Houghton.
Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am nearly finished and you are right and perhaps I am impassioned and so on, because I can 1360 see what is going to happen, because what happens in these issues is, ‘The Act says this’ – when you look at the Act and ‘The Act says we may do it.’ So they come along and do it, because it was the will of Tynwald, when Tynwald approved the Act, etc. to go through on that. So, Mr Speaker, I am almost finished. I ask people to vote against this, but I know it will probably go through. I am asking you to vote against it. I am not politicking; I am not playing 1365 with politics. What I am doing is I am telling you what damage you are going to cause to the protection and everything else of this Island, Mr Speaker. If this Bill gets its Second Reading today, then I will be moving to see if we this Hon. House will send it to a committee to deal with the points. I am sure points that other Hon. Members may make about the Bill as well, that I have not picked up. 1370 But, Mr Speaker, if this Bill goes through all its legislative Branches and becomes an Act, I am going to go up to Police Headquarters at Glencrutchery Road –
Mr Quayle: Don’t say that.
1375 Mr Houghton: And I am going to put a ‘For Sale’ sign on the big sign at Glencrutchery Road.
A Member: You need planning.
Mr Houghton: ‘Police Station for Sale’. (Interjections) 1380 Mr Watterson: We will take this as an admission.
The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer.
1385 Mr Singer: Thank you, Speaker. I will be brief. The position of Chief Constable is one of high visibility in the community and needs the confidence of the community. Therefore, the appointment of the Chief Constable is open and transparent. I think that the proposal in this Bill does not offer that openness and transparency in the reappointment of the Chief Constable, which I think is also very important and very 1390 necessary, because what we are doing here now is that the Minister of the Department goes to
______101 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
the Council of Ministers and says, ‘I want to reappoint the Chief Constable’ and if the Council of Ministers says, ‘Yes’, that is it. I do not believe that should be the position and so I oppose that particular part of the Bill. The other question I would ask the Minister, if he could answer: we have here quoted 1395 ‘further fixed terms’. There is no definition here of ‘fixed terms’. Would I be right in assuming that it is still the five years or could it be for any length of time? (Interjection by Mr Watterson) Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk. 1400 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, if I could say, regarding, I will be supporting the Bill. I also want to thank the Minister and the Department Members, including Mr Coleman, never mind Mr … (Mr Thomas: Thomas!) the Member for West Douglas, for the presentation 1405 that was given to Members. We had a full and frank – and the public may not know this, that is why I mention it, Mr Speaker, to previous speakers there – exchange of views in the Barrool Suite and it is a public record. And I do thank the Minster for that and his Members who support those. I just support an issue to, if you want the word, ‘corporatise’ or some of the issues regarding 1410 the custody suite. I feel quite comfortable with that now, regarding that. I can also feel quite comfortable if we looked at parking controllers and traffic wardens. Because what I would not want to see is highly trained officers – and they are highly trained officers; Mr Houghton has already said that – going round the streets, trying to put tickets on cars, which never happens, but the public demand that. So, I see that is part of a scenario there where a contractor can 1415 come out, do the parking side of it and undertake the traffic warden thing, as long as it is a warranted person for those particular things, for fixed penalties and so forth. I would rather have our highly experienced officers who are now, it is not just a bobby on the beat any more, now, it is forensic … There are all sorts of issues that take place, now: complicated financial crime that takes place as well. Being aware of those and liaising with 1420 industry itself – that is the banking industry, never mind insurance and so forth. Things may happen as a jurisdiction. I do not see us becoming, like the Member for North Douglas said, a hillbilly establishment. I cannot see that, to tell you the truth. And certainly the police force is not for sale; it is not to be privatised. I am sure the Minister is not giving that view. But I would seek comfort in that Tynwald can endorse and we know in this House too that we 1425 are given openness and transparency to discuss issues. There is nothing hidden. I would ask the mover of the Bill, who is the Minister, to say that I am almost sure, from my memory, we were told that the Police Federation were happy with the Bill that was moving forward. For the benefit of the public too and Manx Radio, the public broadcast, amongst others, is that the Chief Constable was there – 1430 A Member: It is not broadcast.
Mr Quirk: Oh, it is not broadcast. But I am sure there is somebody there listening anyway. But the Chief Constable was there and he was frank and open and honest to Members as well. 1435 And I would ask Members really to support the Bill. The Members have scrutinised it. The Member has already said, Mr Coleman … I respect that individual there. He scrutinises the Bills totally, although he is an MLC and I respect the position that they do. Mr Thomas is the same. The Minister, he may be an accountant by heart, but he is still the Minister and he does scrutinise stuff and he talks to Members. 1440 Mr Karran: He is a mate.
______102 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Mr Quirk: He is not a mate.
1445 Mr Watterson: Ahh! (Laughter)
Mr Quirk: Can I clarify that, Mr Speaker? (Laughter)
The Speaker: Do not feel you have to! (Laugher) 1450 Mr Quirk: He is not a mate in parliamentary terms. (Several Members: Ohh!) He may be a mate in other scenarios. (Several Members: Ahh!) (Interjection) But, in parliamentary terms, he may be a Minister, he may be a back-bencher in the future. I do not think he will be. (Interjections and laughter) I think he is down for better things. 1455 A Member: Maybe so lucky.
Mr Malarkey: Stop digging, David! (Laughter)
1460 Mr Quirk: At the end of the day, I have loads of mates. (Laughter) But they may be, Mr Speaker, not all in here. (Interjection)
The Speaker: Thank you for the information. (Laughter) I am sure that was … The Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft. 1465 Mr Watterson: Follow that. (Laughter)
Mrs Beecroft: Unfortunately, I probably do not have as many friends as Mr Quirk! (Laughter)
1470 Mr Karran: It involves how he does his job right.
Mrs Beecroft: Oh, dear. Anyway, yes, back to … I do not have, obviously, the experience that the Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, has in the day-to-day activities of the police force. I look forward to Minister’s response to the 1475 comments and questions that he has made. One I do have though was that he said that the Bill constitutes privatisation of certain areas. Now, I could be misreading it and I hope the Minister will comment on it later on. It actually says ‘contracted’. Now to me that is a big difference to privatisation. Privatisation is where ownership passes into private hands and it cannot be rescinded. ‘Contracted out’, which is what this says, 1480 you can set out terms and conditions of contracts and, if people do not fulfil those terms, you can cancel them. They are for a fixed period; you can rescind them. You have all sorts of powers within those contracts. And it is up to how you produce those contracts as to what powers you have and for how long they last etc. But you are not giving ownership away, as you are with privatisation. 1485 So, I would just like a comment on that, just for my benefit, that I am reading it correctly. And so I look forward to hearing the comment on the other stuff. Thank you.
Mr Watterson: You summarised it perfectly. 1490 The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon.
Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer to my friend and colleague, so it covers both areas. (Laughter)
______103 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
1495 Just on a point from my hon. colleague from Douglas North, Mr Houghton, on section 2(3)(b), a part of this.
Mr Watterson: Do you want give a page number, please?
1500 Mr Cregeen: On page 10. On the position where Mr Houghton is saying that a contracted out member of staff could enter premises if they were accompanied by a constable. Whereas, (3)(b) is an ‘except’:
for the purpose of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property.
So you could actually, without the use of a constable (Interjection) or in that case they can. But, if he could just clarify the position that it is the property that he enters that they are saving 1505 life or limb, not as in, I suppose, in a possible anti-terrorism type role. It may not affect that property, but it may be somebody else’s property or life or limb elsewhere. Just a bit of clarity on that, if he may.
Mr Watterson: Sure. No problem. 1510 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall.
Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a couple of points: Mr Singer, regarding the appointment of the Chief Constable. That is 1515 something that I have been concerned about and I have had discussions with the Minister, but in the UK my understanding – and I stand to be corrected – is that in the UK a Police Commissioner can only extend the appointment of a Chief Constable up to a maximum of three years. It is something that I am a little bit uncomfortable with, and I know the Minister and I have … He put his point across of why he is putting this clause in, the precise meaning that it actually be put 1520 forward, but I still do feel that there should be a bit more clarity on it. Again, I do stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that in the UK the Chief Constable’s position, his fixed term, can only be extended up to a maximum of three years. And I still do feel that really, on balance, that does need some sort of amendment or some workings done on it. I think that would be much better. But if the Minister can comment on why he is putting this clause in, the way that it 1525 is. Then we turn to the bit about outsourcing and I am somewhat cautious about outsourcing police services to private companies. I think we all do have to be very, very careful going down this route, because policing, the model, is very much underpinned by the concept of consent and that means that policing should promote public respect, approval and willing co-operation 1530 and, certainly, it is the public who will hold the Police to account for providing the services. But then moving and using the private sector for some aspects of policing, it can and does raise very significant and very important questions about issues such as accountability, public consent where the liberty and protection of the public is at stake and also a risk management. I think that the public trust and confidence for the communities the Police serve is vital for the effective 1535 policing, whether this is by the Police or through some sort of a partnership arrangement. So, those are some issues that I see: there is the one hand here we are going down the way, outsourcing to private companies and that raises those points which I have just raised. Then, my other point is with regard to the appointment of the Chief Constable, which I still feel that it needs to have some sort of a definite … to do with the action – not the term itself, the original 1540 term, but when it comes to the extension of that particular fixed term. But, if the Minister perhaps could comment on that. So, at the moment, I am in two frames of mind, whether I am going to support it or whether I am not. I think I will leave my comments at that, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
______104 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Karran. 1545 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, my concerns with this Bill were on a number of fronts. I have to say that I do not generally agree with much that the Hon. Member for North Douglas says. I find him more of a situation where he does not understand the argument that we are promoting to try and get good governance in this Island. But, in this case, he has got 1550 experience and I think in this case he should be worthy of listening to, because it is an important issue. We have seen so many factors, as far as the economy of the Isle of Man being turned caustic by bad governance over the last 10 or 15 years, and the last thing we need is law and order to end up on that list with ridiculous freight charges, energy costs, monopolies (Interjection) on so 1555 many factors that affect the economy in the Isle of Man. Law and order affects the economy of the Isle of Man. Law and order has been a major, major factor as far as the location for many a business and new resident in the Island. Because, at the end of the day, Vainstyr Loayreyder, we might have got to the end of a Dutch auction as far as tax is concerned with wealthy people, but the fact that your wife and your kids are safe is a major factor. So this Bill is not just about 1560 policing. It is about that important factor of law and order. Now, I find myself in the ridiculous situation: when I came into this House, I would have been upset if I was not the Antichrist to the police force, a police force that I grew up with where there were burglary cartels, where it was postcode justice. I would have been the first one to attack the police force as far as that is concerned. In 30 years I have seen a rapid change, as far 1565 as the police force is concerned and I believe that the danger we have now, Vainstyr Loayreyder, is that we are in danger of destroying the Isle of Man Constabulary. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) As a former Member of the Home Affairs Department, meeting after meeting, I was concerned about the issues of us needing to make a stand with the Treasury Minister, with the Treasury, in that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Law and order is 1570 something that we have to value. Now, as far as the Hon. Member for North Douglas is concerned, we have fought bitterly in the past about the past Isle of Man Constabulary of my teenagehood, as far as this Island is concerned – and as a youth worker and as a person who was involved with politics for civil rights’ reasons and wanting the same sort of parity with the United Kingdom. But I have to say 1575 that I find myself on his side of the equation. If this Bill is not to be thrown out, it needs to go to a committee. If people, the likes of the Hon. Member, have got drafting issues, and myself – because I am dyslexic – can find drafting difficulties, then we have serious procedural problem as far as this piece of legislation is concerned. We need that clarifying by the Shirveishagh son Cooishyn Sthie in the replies, as far as this Bill is concerned, because I did not notice that and I 1580 am generally quite finicky as far as legislation is concerned. As a Member, over the brief times I have been in charge in executive power, not just with Education, but on the Water Authority, I have found myself in a very uncomfortable position, putting the Chairman of the Water Authority on a five-year contract, to allow the local mafia within the corridors of power to undermine and destroy that. I would be the first one to support 1585 fixed-term contracts at the top of the Civil Service, because if ever there has been a case where people should be sacked, then there is a case for fixed-term contracts at the top of Government. But the Chief Constable is a very, very precious appointment. We must not allow it to become politicised. We must make sure that we have a system that is robust in order to protect his operational freedom, as far as that is concerned. And to be fair to the Hon. Member for 1590 Rushen, the Minister, I have to say in my time there were many things that I might not have agreed with the Minister, but one thing I would say is he did recognise the importance of the independence of the police force. It is so important as far as that is concerned. So, I think that needs a lot of scrutiny as far as what we are doing, as far as controlling the Chief Constable is concerned. (A Member: Hear, hear.) And remember, I lost the appointment of
______105 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
1595 being a Minister in 1993, because I wanted to sack the Chief Constable at the time, over what was going on in the police force. So I understand the issue as far as trying to create an independent appointment, as far as the Chief Constable is concerned. If ever there is one where we need to be more tapered, as far as that is concerned, that is the one post we do. Maybe we need to put fixed contracts on other 1600 Chief Executives (A Member: Yes.) as far as that is concerned, and my attempt was overturned by Government as far as the reappointment of the Chief Executive of the time – not because of his ability. I think that we laughed about the Hon. Member for North Douglas as far as putting the ‘For Sale’ sign over the Headquarters. Well, let us be honest about it: we had the pantomime over 1605 Port Erin, which was never done on the right basis. We had an even bigger pantomime on the lower Douglas one, where we ended up with the situation where we paid £1 million. You new Members need to realise this, when you are getting tickled under the chin by the executive and the club. We paid £1 million to refurbish the lower Douglas police station from an office development to a police station, on a lease – not on ownership, on a lease, (Interjection) 1610 Hon. Members – for £1 million to turn from an office development into a police station and there was not a brick on the site.
Mr Houghton: That is right and now we’re moving that.
1615 Mr Karran: That is why you new Members, the problems you have got at the present time are because of that. So do not laugh at the Hon. Member. We are already on the verge of getting rid of one of the Chief Minister’s white elephants: the lower Douglas police station, (Mr Houghton: Yes.) where it was designed on the most bizarre positions. So do not worry and do not be so flippant about the Hon. Member, because I will defend the Member, even when I do 1620 not think he is right all the time. When he is right, he should be supported. So, I would be concerned about that. I was going to bring a few points up that I was concerned about, that I was considering putting some amendments to this Bill. One of the things that I am concerned about is the issue of minimum staffing and whether we need to put something in primary law, as far as the police 1625 force needing some sort of minimum staffing, as far as the Isle of Man Constabulary is concerned. Because I have to say that from my years when we were totally the Antichrist of the old guard, the old Isle of Man Constabulary, I feel that we have a social, moral and legal obligation to protect our staff, our citizens who are police officers. I believe that something needs to be put in as far as that is concerned and maybe the criteria, as far as the health and 1630 safety legislation is concerned. We are putting these people on front-line services with virtually no back-up. So, I am tempted to see whether to put some amendments to this Bill on that basis, because I am concerned that … I understand we are in hard times and let us be honest about it, I should not have a voice in here, because you have been warned enough that it is coming, as I say, if you 1635 carried on the way you have carried on. But I feel that the police force is a special case and needs to be made sure, because law and order is a cornerstone of everything else, as far as this Island is concerned. I would be interested to know whether the Shirveishagh Cooishyn Sthie, the Minister of the Department, would be interested in a parliamentary committee, so that it could take evidence 1640 from not just serving officers … Because I do get rather annoyed at times. I had somebody yesterday who has been mentioned, saying, ‘Oh, I am off to talk to the staff.’ Do you honestly think staff can talk to Members of the House of Keys (Mr Houghton: Yes, absolutely.) when their staff are about, when their job is on the line? That has been part of the cancer of the whole system of government that has given us the fiascos that we have got to deal with now and the 1645 next House will have to deal with. So, I would be interested in the mover’s viewpoint on a committee.
______106 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
I would also hope that we will not end up with the problem that the Hon. Member for North Douglas – who is not a fully paid up member, but is in there most of the time – will actually have the courtesy of having the issues that he raises replied to in this debate. This is a parliamentary 1650 assembly, a parliament that is supposed to hold the executive to account. I had others issues that I was going to raise, but I think I have raised enough issues at the present time, because I welcome the opportunity of the clauses and hopefully we will get some other issues that need to be ring-fenced because, believe me, law and order is so important as far as the economy is concerned. It is the backbone of everything as far as that is concerned. 1655 I understand the difficulties the hon. mover has: with the cuts coming ever more, as far as privatisation is concerned. But I am concerned that, whilst my good friend, the Hon. Member for South Douglas, the leader of the Liberal Party, is concerned, this is not privatisation. The danger that we have, Vainstyr Loayreyder, is the danger of the continuity and the experience and knowledge, as far as how we go about it. 1660 And the other thing that the mover might consider is maybe some sort of select committee in another place – if he does not want to do it with this Bill – on the whole issue of policing, because I believe, Vainstyr Loayreyder, one of the things that has been destroyed within the Isle of Man Constabulary is that part of being a policeman was being part of a vocation.
1665 A Member: It still is.
Mr Karran: I believe that is something that has been destroyed at the present time; that vocation now is not there, the same. There is not that engagement with the public. The Police have lost contact with the general public. They might have social media, but that is not the 1670 general public. Most of us are not great with that. So, Hon. Members, I will await the response of the Hon. Member, the mover of the Bill, before whether I vote against, allowing for the experience of the Hon. Member for North Douglas, whether to vote with this Bill or not.
1675 The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall.
Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate you allowing me to put to the House my declared interest, which I should have done at the start of my particular contribution to this debate, and that is my wife is a current 1680 serving police officer. Sir, to the House.
The Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Member. I am sure the House appreciates that intervention. I call on the mover to reply. Hon. Member, Mr Watterson.
1685 Mr Watterson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope Members will bear with me, given the number of comments made. I appreciate that I did say in my opening remarks that this Bill covers three relatively simple issues. Well, just because the issues are simple does not mean that the things that flow from them are either simple or easy and these are things that we have certainly considered and wrestled with in the 1690 Department. Just to start with Mr Houghton’s point. Mr Houghton and I have worked together on previous Select Committees and other bodies, where I would certainly think that I have got a reasonable reputation for an eye for detail, as indeed has the Attorney General’s Chambers, as have my Department Members, as have my legislative officers. And all of them have missed the fact that 1695 on page 11 the word ‘be’ is missing in the sentence on line 3: ‘his or her designation shall exercisable’ – of course, ‘shall be exercisable’. (Interjection by Mr Houghton) So yes, we have all missed that one. It is a fair cop. (Laughter) But that is the only one I am aware of. There are a lot of people have seen this and gone through it with a fine-tooth comb and that has been missed.
______107 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
With regard to a lot of his other comments, I am not sure whether he is accidently or wilfully 1700 misinterpreting the provisions of the Bill and, in dealing with the point about contracting out, I just skip forward to the contribution made by Mrs Beecroft who gave it a fantastic and, what is more important, brief, summary between the difference between privatisation and contracting out. I am absolutely happy to stand by her definition of that. That is exactly what is envisaged. It is not about passing over ownership. It is about working under the supervision of other police 1705 officers. It is about maintaining control over the staff. There is provision in here about ensuring that even the disciplinary regulations will be set out so that there is very tight control on those people who are contracted to provide these services. So, I would absolutely concur with the points made by Mrs Beecroft in her contribution. Also there are safeguards in here. Now, the Hon. Member for North Douglas made great play about the fact that this means 1710 that any contracted person could do anything at any time to anyone – and that is just not the case!
Mr Houghton: No, I didn’t say that.
1715 Mr Watterson: Well, I think that was the impression you tried to leave Members of the House with. I would like to just go through a few of the safeguards that are in here, to make sure that Hon. Members are aware of what we are and are not trying to do. Certainly custody is the one that we foresee as being workable. Now, I have seen this done in Lincolnshire to great effect, where you have private contractors working under the supervision 1720 of a custody officer, who is a police officer. And they have sufficient powers in order to do that custody role, but it is overseen by a police officer, at either sergeant or inspector level, depending on the requirements of the legislation, which does not change elsewhere. What you have seen here is there is quite a lot of detail set out here about what needs to be included in an Order to Tynwald, setting out: what services are going to be contracted out; how 1725 it is going to be worked; what powers people are going to be having; what job titles they are going to be having, even. To get down to that level of detail, so that Hon. Members are left in absolutely no doubt as to what is being contracted and what is not and what their permission is being sought for and what they are signing up to. So this is not a carte blanche. It will be a very detailed provision, so that people know exactly what they are signing up to. 1730 One of the things that has not been mentioned yet and I would be wrong if I did not: actually this is an opportunity for stability and specialisation in custody. Those who have had experience in this will realise that –
A Member: In custody? 1735 Mr Watterson: In custody. (Laughter) In terms of policing and seeing the Police at work and, certainly, if Hon. Members have not had the opportunity yet to spend some time with the Constabulary and maybe go out with them on a shift or for a few hours, I would certainly be happy to try and facilitate that. 1740 Mr Houghton: I was there on Friday night – in custody. (Laughter)
Mr Watterson: And you are here, so that is nice. (Laughter) But one of the things that we know is that officers do rotate through the Constabulary, doing 1745 different jobs. They will be in neighbourhood policing, then they may move into some specialist areas. And custody is one of those specialisms that constables may move into and then they move out again. So, they may spend two or three years in that role, but actually this is a real opportunity for contracted staff to specialise in that. And, yes, I am not going to deny that one of the motivations behind this is to save money. 1750 Police officers are highly trained, highly specialist and are not a cheap resource. So the more that
______108 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
they are out on the streets and doing the neighbourhood engagement, doing the visits to schools and nursing homes and other things, that I know they actually really enjoy doing, the less time that they are in having to do what you might consider back office function, like police custody. I do not see that there is a reason not to have that contracted out and I am delighted to 1755 see that the Hon. Member for North Douglas thinks that as well. Now there was a point made by the Hon. Member about reasonable force, but this is already a provision that is set out in common law, about being able to use reasonable force. If any one of you are walking down Strand Street today and saw somebody bursting out of a shop and the shopkeeper chasing after them saying, ‘Stop thief!’ and you tackle that person to the floor, 1760 having reasonable suspicion that that person was a burglar, then that reasonable force is perfectly allowable to you as a common citizen in helping to enforce the law. So, we just need to make sure that those common law rights are not in any way interrupted by the legislation that we impose. I think Mr Cregeen also made a comment about – on page 10 and (3)(b) – the common law 1765 power of preservation of life and property. Well, that is the same. These are existing common law powers that already exist for you, me and anybody else to make sure that we are able to assist in the preservation of law and order. Now, the Hon. Member for North Douglas also made great play about the fact that you can have these, what he liked to call ‘private security staff’, banging on doors, exercising warrants. 1770 Well, that is not the case. (Interjection by Mr Houghton) Firstly, I have said that any contracted out individual is going to have to be subject to an Order approved by Tynwald, for what functions they are and are not allowed to do. But also, I will remind Members that there is provision in another piece of legislation, supported by the Hon. Member for North Douglas: the Criminal Justice, Police Powers and Other Amendments Act, which allowed specialists to go in 1775 with constables in order to exercise warrants. Now, the reasons that are foreseen around that are certainly around financial crime and taking in accountants and forensic examiners like that. So, these people may end up working for, shall we say, the Financial Investigation Unit, the Financial Crime Unit and they will not necessarily be police officers, but they will accompany police officers – 1780 Mr Houghton: Yes, a different interpretation.
The Minister: But these are … (Interjection by Mr Houghton) That is certainly, in terms of having private security staff, as he calls it, breaking the door down to exercise a warrant, not 1785 what this Act provides for. (Interjection by Mr Houghton) Not what it provides for at all.
Mr Houghton: It is.
Mr Watterson: It is not. 1790 Moving on to the appointment of the Chief Constable – I am just making sure I have covered over the points there – about openness and transparency. Well, as the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall, did say, there is precedent for having additional time in the UK. Now I have not researched what UK officers, different constabularies and different forces around the world have for reappointment terms for Chief Constables. I want something that works for us. What I 1795 am very conscious about is that I did not particularly want the Minister for Home Affairs, whoever that might be at the time, having their hands tied by legislation. If you have somebody who is perfectly capable of the job, who is well respected and who does carry the confidence of Tynwald and the general public, why should we then set an artificial limit in legislation, when we have somebody who is capable of the job and has that great track record. 1800 Now, of course, the Minister at the time will of course be accountable to this place and Tynwald for any decision that is made there. So, they can be held accountable and it does give flexibility in terms of the length of any future term, for the same reason.
______109 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Now, I appreciate that some people feel that it should be time capped and that is something that I will consider and discuss further with Members ahead of clauses stage, if people feel that 1805 there should be some sort of legislative (A Member: Hear, hear.) maximum, and I am happy to discuss that with Members. But I would not see any one term being longer than five years and certainly that would be my initial consideration on that. Those points were made by Mr Singer and Mr Hall. I think the other thing is that this is also about clarifying the legislation at the moment. There 1810 is a certain amount of uncertainty over what the law does and does not allow. Members will appreciate that in the past the Chief Constables’ contract has been renewed for a second five- year term, but this is just to provide, perhaps, more certainty within the Police Act, just to what can and cannot be done. But I do not, certainly, consider that Members are wrong in being cautious. This is something that is important and it is something that we do need to get right. 1815 Mr Quirk talked about traffic wardens and parking controllers, and I do not necessarily see that these provisions need to be used for that, in terms of contracting out. There are separate legislative mechanisms for appointing parking controllers and traffic wardens. So, I do not necessarily see that this would need to be the avenue used there. But I do thank him for his support. (Mr Quirk: Friendship.) And friendship. (Laughter) 1820 I am just going down … I think, finally, some of the points that I may not have covered from Mr Karran. I could not agree with him more: that law and order is an important issue for this Island and one of the cornerstones of our economic prosperity. This will, if custody goes ahead and Members approve it in this Bill and the Order that would come to Tynwald and allow that to happen, free up officers to move out of the custody suite and go and do frontline policing. It is 1825 exactly what I think he wants. So it is just a matter of making sure that the appropriate governance is there; the appropriate mechanisms are there, to make sure that it is a robust system, that provides both the appropriate powers for people doing this work in a contracted out environment, but also the appropriate responsibilities as well and that is also set out in the Bill. (A Member: Moderation.) 1830 I cannot think of any precedent over setting in legislation a minimum number of police officers, but I do, if Hon. Members are not aware, have a legal obligation under the Police Act 1993, to provide the Island with an effective and efficient police force. That is a legislative duty that I have (Interjection) and in doing that, I have had four years in that role and I have been responsible for working with the Chief Constable about reductions in the budgets of policing. I 1835 make no bones about it. You cannot expect the same level of policing with 211 officers as you have with 248. Things have changed; things continue to change. I have also said that I believe that the number of 211 officers, to do what we do in the way that we do it, is an irreducible minimum. So, I have gone on record and said and been quite clear about where I think the future of policing is and I do not think it is any smaller than it is at present. 1840 I think we also saw a bit of bluster about, do I believe that staff tell me and police officers tell me straight the way it is? Well, absolutely I do. I have been in a number of face-to-face meetings, both with the Senior Command Team, with groups of officers and I have had Q&A sessions with them several times over the years. I have been out on patrols with individual officers, without senior officers present and I do get it as it is. And certainly I would like to think 1845 that Hon. Members have felt that, when the Chief Constable has turned up and delivered his annual report to you, he has told it as it is as well. He has told Members of Tynwald and members of the public exactly where the strains are, but also the areas that he is very proud of and I am proud of the officers that work for the community as a whole, in keeping our Island safe. 1850 So, these three points that this Bill addresses … I welcome the fact that Members take the time to look at this seriously; that they have given it the scrutiny that it deserves. I would like to think that I have answered any Members’ questions. I am obviously absolutely happy to help answer any other questions that may arise between now and the next stage of the Bill.
______110 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
I am keen to reassure you that I certainly take policing seriously and that I do believe that the 1855 safeguards are in the Bill for contracting out. I also think that we should not tie the hands of future Ministers for Home Affairs if they have a great Chief Constable working for them, to enable them to reappoint that person. That is my view. I accept that others in this House may have different views. I do ask Hon. Members to support this Bill and continue the dialogue on it. So with that I beg, 1860 sir, to move.
The Speaker: Hon. Members, the Second Reading of the Police (Amendment) Bill has been moved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.
A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Hall Mr Bell Mr Houghton Mr Boot Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Harmer Mr Karran Mr Malarkey Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Singer Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson
The Speaker: With 19 votes for, 2 votes against, the motion therefore carries.
Police (Amendment) Bill 2015 – Referral to committee – Motion lost 1865 I call the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton.
Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful for your leave, Mr Speaker. I beg to move that this Bill now be sent to a committee in order to review the legislation 1870 before us and that is under Standing Order 4.10(1). I beg to move, sir.
Mr Hall: I beg to second, Mr Speaker.
1875 The Speaker: I will ask the Secretary just to read out the terms of the motion, so the House is clear.
______111 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Secretary: The Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, has moved under Standing Order 4.10:
That the clauses of the Police (Amendment) Bill be referred to a committee of three Members with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, as amended, to consider and to report to the House.
1880 The Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak? Mr Watterson.
Mr Watterson: Yes, Mr Speaker. I intend to speak against the motion to move to a committee. I do not think it is particularly 1885 helpful and I do not want to see the opportunities that this Bill presents to be kicked into the long grass in future. I am also not entirely sure – and the hon. mover might be able to assist, in terms of what he hopes to gain – what he hopes to learn that cannot be provided in a very timely manner either by writing to me or asking questions in the same way that we have gone through today, where I 1890 think that every point that he has made and other Members have made, I have managed to respond to and provide answers to. So, I think this possibly might be a tactic just to tie up the Bill, because once it disappears into the black hole of a Bill committee – we have seen it already with another one – that it may never see the light of day again. I think that that represents a real challenge. (Interjection) Because, as I 1895 think everyone has acknowledged, there are good parts of this Bill. I would hate to see the baby, as it were, thrown out with the bathwater, because of matters that actually may be subject to debate and amendment at the next stage of the Bill. So, I would urge Hon. Members to not support the creation of a Committee to rake over this Bill. I think the concepts are simple and all the points have been answered. 1900 The Speaker: Mr Thomas, do you wish to speak?
Mr Thomas: Just for the avoidance of doubt, as a matter of principle, I think it is very valuable to have pre-legislative committee work (Mrs Beecroft: Hear, hear.) and also to have committee 1905 review, but the way that we are constituted at the minute with the Legislative Council, which is de facto a legislative committee, I think we have plenty of safeguards in respect of this particular Bill. I just want to remind Members that this is a six-clause, two-Schedule Bill. As far as I remember, the last Bill that this House referred to a committee was a 69-clause, three-Schedule 1910 Bill, which was the Landlord and Tenant (Private Housing) Bill. In that case, there were many, many, many more political issues –
Mr Quirk: And it was flawed.
1915 Mr Thomas: still to be addressed and many, many more legislative drafting issues that needed to be addressed, which is very, very different from this very simple, very straightforward Bill in question here.
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Karran. 1920 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, whilst I was not prepared to vote against this Bill, because I thought, apart from anything else, it would give the opportunity at the clauses stage for us to put amendments forward on issues of concern, I have to say I think the newer Members need to realise, before they get engrossed into this situation of just rubber-stamping legislation for the
______112 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
1925 executive, that this Bill reminds me of another piece of legislation. It was the Currency Act 2006 – I cannot … I ask the Clerk to refer to it – where we had this innocent piece of legislation, that was supposed to be that we were all paranoid if we did not support it and it was terrible; that now allows us to be able to use it as rabbit to be pulled out of the hat for any of the crazy things, like the latest crazy thing: the Manx Gas agreement; we had the Sefton affair. 1930 I do feel that Hon. Members should consider the Hon. Member for North Douglas as far as his committee is concerned because, whilst I was thinking of putting amendments to the Bill and maybe then that could have forced it to go to committee, I would caution Members that are not aligned to the Government, that they should support the Hon. Member for North Douglas.
1935 Mr Watterson: Would the Hon. Member just …? Certainly if it would help the Hon. Member and others, I am happy to build in and give my word on some sort of delay for the clauses stage, to allow that. I think that would be far more constructive –
1940 A Member: You said that.
Mr Watterson: – than a committee.
Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I think the problem we have here, I have to say, with the 1945 Hon. Member for Rushen, the Shirveishagh son Cooishyn Sthie, is that the thing is I do like the idea of some sort of input from people from outside this Hon. House, because I think there are certain points that people could give value to a select committee. Whilst I understand the Hon. Member and I appreciate that things have changed dramatically in the last year or so, as far as the parliamentary process is concerned to the few of us who try and honour that, I just feel that, 1950 whether you could argue it is premature for the Hon. Member, being fair in this House, without the amendments from Hon. Members, that is maybe a point. But I actually think that this would be a very worthy thing. We had questions in the other place, Vainstyr Loayreyder, not so long ago from the likes of myself and I believe my colleague, for Written Answer, to do with the number of policemen that 1955 have left the service. I think it would do no harm to have a Select Committee and allow public input into this proposal. So, whilst I supported the Second Reading of this Bill, I will be supporting the Hon. Member for North Douglas as far as a committee being set up. I hope that people put people on that committee who could actually put value into that 1960 committee, because this is really an opportunity, through this Police (Amendment) Bill, we need to really, maybe, talk about the fundamental issues of policing for the Isle of Man and where we are actually going. Because I believe, Vainstyr Loayreyder, this legislative assembly, whilst it is always very good to take on board issues from other jurisdictions, I do feel that maybe we could make sure that we do not end up with a situation where we do not see law and order digress to 1965 the point that was seen in the United Kingdom. Whilst I could never see the situation where policemen could not go in an area safely on their own in the Isle of Man, like we are now seeing in the United Kingdom, I do feel that we need to be proactive. (A Member: Vote.) So, I would hope Hon. Members would support the Hon. Member as far as that is concerned, to have his select committee and I hope that Members will support him and make sure there is a 1970 balance on that committee as far as that important function. Law and order is not something that should be made up on the hoof. It is not made up on the hoof. We have got example after example where we do things with good faith in here and we find out that something that we have done through good faith has then been changed out of all recognition to what was originally proposed with good faith, taken on by Hon. Members, but 1975 other agendas have been allowed to carry on. So, I hope Hon. Members will support the Hon. Member.
______113 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft.
Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I will be brief, as usual. 1980 I think it would be very helpful, actually, if it went to a legislative committee. I agree with Mr Thomas that these have been proven in other jurisdictions, where it is pre-legislation committees, to be very useful. Unfortunately, we do not have that process here, but they have acknowledged that, where they do have that process, it actually produces better legislation and legislation that all the different points have been thoroughly listened to and taken into account 1985 before it comes forward. I think that, to use the Legislative Council as our safeguard is not appropriate. (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) I think we should be comfortable with it before it goes to that position. So, because of that, I will be supporting the committee.
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen. 1990 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think in one way that this is actually a bit premature: putting it to a committee now. The Minister has given an undertaking that he will give that extra time in there and he will listen to the concerns and there may be amendments (A Member: Clauses.) coming to the clauses. 1995 I think that, if Members are minded for a committee, I think probably in a later stage, if the Minister has not proven to his word that he would consider these, I think that would be a more apt time to refer it to a committee, rather than now. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I would say give him the chance to listen. It gives Members time to actually go out and talk to either members of the Constabulary or the legal profession, before it actually gets to that stage; that we actually 2000 give the Minister a chance now. would say, give him a chance now and, if you are still not happy, then possibly at clauses go then to a committee.
The Speaker: Hon. Members, I call Mr Houghton to reply. 2005 Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to all of those contributors in this particular debate. I would like to put on record that I have the greatest admiration for the Hon. Member, Mr Watterson. I did work with him on one of the most important Select Committees this Island 2010 has ever seen and that was in the KSF issue. (Interjection) His detailed input was second to none (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) and I cannot say anything other than that about the Hon. Member. And of course, if you like – I am probably talking myself out of what I am proposing to do, (Mr Watterson: Please do!) (Laughter) but I think it is right and proper to do that, because we are all equal parties in this particular case. 2015 Okay, if you like, KSF was right up Mr Watterson’s street: a much more involved and detailed and complicated banking issue, as that was. And when another place put Mr Watterson in there and he became Chairman of it, etc. he was the right person to lead that and he was excellent. I would just like to perhaps ask Hon. Members, I do not care what you think about me; I am here for the public, not here for myself. But you must listen to what I am trying to say here. I feel 2020 that although the Minister is the Minister for Home Affairs, has been there a long time and done a good job, please listen to what I am saying, because I have a lot of seasoned, both current and retired police officers who are looking at this with incredulity. One very valuable comment was made here by my hon. colleague, Mr Cregeen, is, ‘We need to have time to go out and ask people about this.’ That is a good point. Go and ask the right 2025 people in your own constituencies –
Mr Watterson: Consultation. It is consultation.
______114 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Mr Houghton: – about this whole matter. It is consultation – 2030 Mr Watterson: We have had it.
Mr Houghton: – and the Bill has been out, Mr Speaker, to consultation. It has and I have seen some consultation replies back that the Department has not taken notice of. 2035 Mr Watterson: We have written to everyone.
Mr Houghton: So, with all the issues about tying up the Bill and so on and it is very, very unfortunate that there are two other sections of the Bill that have my blessing. That is not an 2040 issue at all, as I see it. In respect of Mr Thomas, as I spoke very highly of him and I still think highly of him, he shot himself in the foot in the particular case when it got up, on behalf of the Department to put his point in, because he said this is only a six-clause, two-Schedule Bill and he was correct about that. And a lot of the Bill covers those other two functions: one is about appointing the Chief 2045 Constable and then the other function as well. So, here, this is only one of three matters that I am looking to be examined by the committee, not the whole area of this only six-clause Bill. I think the Hon. Member, Mr Quirk, said the other Bill that went to committee was how many clauses?
2050 Mr Thomas: Sixty nine clauses.
Mr Houghton: Sixty nine clauses. (Interjection by Mr Quirk) So, that is reason why that is in the long grass. This would not necessarily need to be in the long grass. (Interjection) Possibly Mr Watterson is I think a little bit on the back foot on a couple of these points. I 2055 would invite him, if my proposal for this to go to a committee fails, to seriously bring the Bill back with these private policing function sections taken out of it, so that we can move forward with the rest of the Bill, because it has got tied up with other sections of an Amendment Bill. But as far as that is concerned and I think the Hon. Member, Mr Karran, made a good point, because bringing people in from the outside: supportive, very much, of what the Hon. Member, 2060 Mr Cregeen had said, speaking to people on the outside. Because we are changing core policing functions in this. No matter how Mr Watterson tries to dress it up, that is what we are doing. It is there is black and white. My interpretation – I am not a legal person – of that is there: what I am reading in black and white in the Bill. No matter how you wish to dress it up. 2065 You must listen to that very valuable point that the Hon. Member, Mr Karran, made in his input: that whatever we support as good faith, because we have been talked into by the Minister and so on, does change on the outside, Hon. Members. It changes on many times. The will of Tynwald to go down one road means that very often, when you go into the mechanics of what we have approved in Tynwald or in this hon. place, the interpretation of that changes 2070 when it gets down on the street. And it is not what Hon. Members wanted to support. That is why I am cautioning in this very, very important area of the changes, what I am saying, to core Police functions. So, I am in the hands of this Hon. House. Please support … I do not think I have ever tried to move a Bill in this Hon. House in my time, myself, to a committee, but I would ask for the 2075 support on that. If that does not happen, then I will go down the road of bringing in amendments myself. And, of course, I would be more than pleased, because we do have that relationship: myself and Mr Watterson, of talking to each other and I am always very grateful for that. I beg to move, sir. 2080
______115 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is that the Police (Amendment) Bill be referred to a committee of three. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.
A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Bell Mr Hall Mr Boot Mr Houghton Mr Cannan Mr Karran Mr Cregeen Mr Harmer Mr Malarkey Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Singer Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson
The Speaker: Four votes for; 17 against. The motion therefore fails to carry.
3.2. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill 2015 – Second Reading deferred
Mr Watterson to move:
That the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill 2015be read a second time.
The Speaker: We move now to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill and I call on Mr 2085 Watterson to move the Second Reading.
Mr Watterson: Mr Speaker, I wonder, with your indulgence, whether Members might be willing to accept my apologies and allow me to move that on a future occasion, sir?
2090 The Speaker: You are not moving today?
Mr Watterson: If that is okay?
The Speaker: That is okay.
Leave of absence granted 2095 The Speaker: Hon. Members, the Hon. Member did indicate to me, during the course of the morning, that he would be seeking leave of absence from one o’clock to attend to Government business, off-Island, at the last moment. I advise the House that I grant that leave.
______116 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
4. BILL FOR THIRD READING
4.2. War Memorials Bill 2015 – Third Reading approved
Mr Watterson to move:
That the War Memorials Bill 2015 be read a third time.
2100 The Speaker: So, Mr Watterson, would you be wishing to move the Third Reading of the War Memorials Bill?
Mr Watterson: Mr Speaker, I would like to chance my arm at that one, (Laughter) given how that one has gone down on the previous two Readings. 2105 Mr Speaker, given the smooth progress this Bill has made through its journey in the House of Keys, I do not see the need to reiterate its provisions here at Third Reading. I do, however want to thank my seconder, Mr Ronan; drafter, Howard Connell; the War Memorials Preservation Committee, who have been intimately involved in this Bill; as well as those of ex-service bodies, the Church of England and others who have made sure that this is 2110 robust legislation. It is fitting that this Bill receives its final Reading in this place during the remembrance period and I can think of no better tribute that this House can pay to honour the sacrifice of the fallen than the preservation of those war memorials that hold their memory sacred around our Island. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It demonstrates our long-lasting commitment to remembrance and I 2115 beg to move.
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Quirk.
Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 2120 The Speaker: I put the motion that the War Memorials Bill be read for the third time. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
5. LEAVE TO INTRODUCE
A Bill to establish an independent health regulator – Leave to introduce – Debate commenced
The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to move:
That leave be given to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to establish the office of independent health regulator; and for connected purposes.
The Speaker: Item 5, leave to introduce. I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas South. 2125 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try to be brief because it is actually a very simple principle. The Bill that I am asking leave to introduce is to provide for an independent health regulator and you will all remember that I brought a motion to Tynwald in July, asking for this very thing.
______117 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
2130 The main grounds for opposing this appeared to be that the West Midlands Quality Review reports were not due to be completed until March 2017 and that there had been enough upheaval without having an independent regulator as well. The idea of the proposed legislation is that it can be ready for use at an appropriate time following the completion of the West Midlands reviews. 2135 I would point out that, when people look to relocate anywhere, the main areas that they look at are what standard of living that they can achieve in the area that they are looking to move to. As we have heard before, they look at crime rates. That is very important. In fact, it came out the top consideration in both independent surveys done in 2011. And the other very important areas that they look at are: health, education and then ancillary 2140 matters like property prices: what type of property can they afford to live in; how their children are going to be educated and what sort of health service does the area have. I think it is very important we cannot be seen to lag behind our competitors if we are serious in our commitment to attract inward investment to the Island. And we are falling behind our competitors and our neighbours. England has the Care Quality Commission. Scotland has the 2145 Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Wales has Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales. Northern Ireland has Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. Ireland has Health Information and Quality Authority. Jersey has recently passed a law requiring an independent Health and Social Care Commission to be set up and to come into being by 2017. Guernsey is having discussions and considerations at the moment as to whether it would benefit from a 2150 statutory health and social care regulator. So, we really are falling behind here. I believe it is necessary to have a regulatory body to provide the oversight and the quality assurance that ensure best practice is followed and maintained. It is no good having all the West Midlands reviews and then, once everything is implemented, having no oversight. It is a crucial element of good governance and protection. 2155 This legislation, if it is supported today, will provide a long-term strategy and protect the standards of our health care for generations to come. The proposed legislation is about a fundamental function of government which is to protect its people. People are often at their very most vulnerable and most in need of adequate safeguards when they are ill. The details of how people want this to be achieved, such as whether the regulator should be 2160 on Island or if we should form an alliance with one of our neighbours, can be debated and decided at a later date, but today is the principle of it. Do we want to protect our people, including our health professionals, by having an independent regulator or do we not? There is public support for this and there is professional support for this and I do hope that Members will support it as well. 2165 I would welcome input from any Members who feel that this is important and who would like to work with me. If they are interested in working, I would be delighted to have their input and to bring this forward in a suitable manner later on. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
2170 The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.
Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I rise to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle. 2175 Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should say at the outset that I am disappointed to see the motion from the Hon. Member for South Douglas, which is remarkably similar to the one which she introduced in Tynwald Court in July of this year. The Hansard record of the debate in the other place runs to some 24 pages 2180 and so it cannot be said that the matter was not discussed in detail and at length. The result was
______118 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
emphatic: Tynwald Court rejected the Hon. Member’s move to introduce an independent regulator for the health services by an overwhelming majority. It is not for me to say, but I do not know why this House is being asked to go over the same ground so soon afterwards, though the Hon. Member has tried to maybe clarify her points, but 2185 they are not really different from the argument put forward earlier. As Hon. Members will recall, my Department’s strategy for the coming five years was approved unanimously by Tynwald Court on 20th October, only two weeks ago. We are now preparing to start the planning phase, ready for delivering that strategy. Our aim is to transform health and social care services in the Isle of Man, and I do not intend to repeat the key 2190 objectives here today. I feel obliged, Mr Speaker, to repeat some of the points which I made in Tynwald Court in July. Since my appointment as Minister for Health and Social Care, I have championed the scrutiny of our services by, for example, the West Midlands Quality Review Service, which the Hon. Member for Douglas South mentions. However, it does not just stop there: the Department 2195 has established the Quality Improvement Board at Noble’s Hospital, to address the recommendations of external scrutiny bodies. In January of this year we introduced the Corporate Governance Board, which is chaired by a lay member and advises the Department on actions that are needed to mitigate risk and ensure compliance with both statutory requirements and the recommendations of internal and external 2200 inspection bodies. The introduction of the Regulation of Care Act 2013 and the Healthcare Professionals Act 2014 has strengthened regulation and inspection activity. We are consulting on a new National Health and Care Service Bill to replace the existing NHS Act 2001 which includes powers relating to the commissioning of independent monitoring and 2205 review of health services, similar to that currently being provided by the West Midlands Quality Review Service. We have the Health Services Consultative Committee, a statutorily constituted review body, which submits an annual report to the Department and Members of Tynwald on the discharge of its functions. 2210 There is no dispute, Mr Speaker, that we do not have at this time an independent regulator of health services in the Isle of Man comparable to the UK. However, as I have said before, the cost of introducing oversight by bodies such as or similar to the Care Quality Commission or to monitor it is, in my view, that the cost would be prohibitive. It is also worth pointing out that England has a population of 60 million plus; Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland are in 2215 the 4 million to 5 million category. The Isle of Man is 85,000. It really boils down to: I have a limited pot of money. Now, if Hon. Members want me to take a minimum of £¼ million and we were not gilding the lily on that one. A consultant earns between £120,000 and £250,000 a year. That is the type of person, with qualifications, we would have to employ to do it. They would need admin help; they would then need office 2220 accommodation. Where am I going to take that money from? Where would the Hon. Members like me to cut? In this morning, I got a very distressing e-mail from a member of the public who is waiting for their hip operation, which we are not proud of the fact that our waiting lists are too long at this moment, and we are working and looking at ways of constantly reducing our waiting operations. 2225 But, if I am going to be asked to take a minimum of £¼ million out of my budget to have an independent regulator, when I have already reeled off half a dozen committees who are doing that, for a population for 85,000, then I would like the suggestions from Hon. Members who want to support this motion, where they suggest I cut the funding from? Equally, with that money, just as an example, I could do a full screening from nearly everyone 2230 on the Isle of Man for cancer, if I had a spare £¼ million in cash floating around the Department, which sadly I do not.
______119 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
So, I am absolutely clear that as service providers the many members of staff in the Department of Health and Social Care must strive to provide the highest standards of patient care and safety. I am clear that we are in fact monitoring such standards through internal and 2235 external, independent mechanisms. Concluding, Mr Speaker, for all of the reasons which I have now covered, I do not feel that we need an independent health regulator now and so I will be opposing the leave to introduce. We should never say ‘never’ of course and circumstances may change, but the regulator is not needed right now. 2240 Thank you.
The Speaker: I call on the mover – Mr Robertshaw. Would Members please indicate a little earlier? Mr Robertshaw. 2245 Mr Robertshaw: Sorry, Mr Speaker, sorry. The Minister of Health and Social Care knows full well I am a strong supporter of his strategy and I have indicated in public to that effect. In one of the reasons he gave that we should not have an independent regulator, he mentioned the Regulation of Care Bill, which I personally 2250 brought through. But I still feel, as a principle here, that in the final analysis we do need that independence of mind: (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) that those of us who use our health service, and so most of us, will know, in the final analysis, we can look to that person. I might suggest that the Minister might be jumping the gun with regard to his determination 2255 to see it as £¼ million. That has not been fixed or decided upon, nor the shape, size or where that regulator sits –
Mr Quayle: That is a minimum cost.
2260 Mr Robertshaw: – but that final independence, I think is necessary and therefore I will be choosing to support the mover of this motion.
The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall.
2265 Mr Hall: Thank you, Madam – Mr Speaker, should I say. (Laughter) I too am tempted to support the mover in this, although I do have some concerns about it, to do with obviously when we are setting up an independent regulator, and that is obviously is what the Minister has alluded to is the cost and that would probably lie with where my concerns are – although, the principle of an independent regulator, I think, is a very good and it is a very 2270 valid one. I would speak, with regard to an independent regulator: my professional background is from probably one of the most highly regulated industries that there is. However, the UK government – to do with aviation – does require the Civil Aviation Authority, who are the independent regulator, to meet all of its costs entirely from the charges on those whom it actually regulates. 2275 And I can tell Hon. Members that those charges that are imposed for that service are absolutely eye-watering. They are running into sometimes hundreds of pounds just to issue one official piece of paperwork. So we do have to be very mindful about the cost that could come from it, although I do think that the principle of it is a very good one, and I do think in principle that it would be a very good 2280 think to have in the Isle of Man, particularly, just like in aviation, to do with safety. Aviation has pretty much led the way, and medicine and health are trying to catch up the aviation example that has been developed since the 1970s.
______120 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
So there is lots to learn from there, but there is this issue about the cost, and I think we need to be very clear about what those would be. But at the end of the day, at least we should be 2285 going and trying to explore this and try and move towards it. So on that basis, although I would give the mover some caution about this, about the cost that would be involved, but I would support her move for this.
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Karran. 2290 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I thought it was interesting, the Hon. Member for Onchan’s point about the costs as far as the Civil Aviation Authority. But what we need to realise, what is the cost if we did not have a Civil Aviation Authority? Sometimes you have to have these things as far as the situation, wherever it is. I think the point is that he talks about the costs. What is it 2295 costing us for not having one? Vainstyr Loayreyder, as a former Member for Health, unfortunately never made Minister in there, (Interjection) the situation is that there has never been a lack of resources for the Health Service. When we had the old Reciprocal Health Agreement that we had, which had flipped after many years – we were in plus, from being in deficit, when we had 300,000 or 400,000 tourists on 2300 the Island, where it would have been in the United Kingdom’s interests. We must have put in some of the highest levels of per capita as far as our Health Service is concerned, and I would be with the Hon. Member for Ramsey, the Ard-shirveishagh, the Chief Minister: I am not ashamed of that, but the question that has to be asked is whether we got the value for that input, as far as that self-service is concerned, and I think we have got a resounding no, as far as that is 2305 concerned. We have as big, if not bigger waiting list than the United Kingdom. So I do feel that the issue of cost is important, but equally, the issue of having no regulator in the airways would be a disaster, and the costs fail in significance. And I feel that you would find that in this case, that you might actually find that this would end up being cost-effective, and actually cost-neutral, if it is run right. 2310 Time and time again, it is not the lack of resources; it is poor management of those resources that has affected that. And I suppose, if I was Minister of Health and Social Care, maybe if I was looking in short political terms, I would be voting with him on that issue. But we in this House, and there is something that seems to be lacking, is that we have a legislative process outside our executive function. I am disappointed that a Minister of this Island does not seem to realise 2315 there is a difference between a declaratory resolution and primary legislation. This proposal, in my opinion, needs to be looked on a few fundamental issues. This is a way of developing audit and accountability into our Health Services. Every Member in this Hon. House has had something in their manifesto about the Health Services, and how we can improve it, every one of us in this House. This is a way of trying to put some sort of good structures into 2320 the systems of government. You are going to be legislating in the end term and in the next House, Vainstyr Loayreyder, in the situation where you are not going to be able to throw money at a problem, you are not going to have that luxury. So we have got to change, and I actually think that when we hear from the Minister saying about the costs, we will more likely find out this will actually save costs. 2325 Mr Quayle: So why did not you do it when you were on the Department then?
Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I did try, as I say – I tried very much as far as in the Department is concerned. 2330 Mr Quirk: Through the Chair, Mr Speaker.
Mr Karran: And the point is that his initiatives on a multi-number of things were actually initiated by myself.
______121 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
2335 The likes of all these hip replacements all started when I was in the Department. I was the one that was prepared to take on the medical mafia. I was never the Minister, but I think the point is I do find it quite appalling that the Hon. Member tries to, and it seems a situation with my good friend for Rushen, trying to have a go when they had circumvented the opportunity that you cannot have the situation … And I think it is important, Vainstyr Loayreyder, that the 2340 point is, the Department is not the Members of the Department; the Department is the Minister and the Minister has total power. I do find it rather disturbing that they try and twist that reality, just like they have a block vote. So, Hon. Members, if you have put something in your manifesto about how you want improve the Health Services and help our people, we need to support this proposal. 2345 He talks about the quarter of a million that he reckons it will cost as far as he is concerned, coming out of his Department. This might not come out of his Department. In fact, to be perfectly honest with you, I want it independent of his Department if it is going to be any use. (Interjection by Mr Quirk) So Hon. Members, before we go down the road of block votes, remember in this House this is 2350 a parliamentary assembly. Is there an issue as far as the Health Service is concerned? Is there an issue about health care? Is there an issue about making sure that we actually get what we willingly vote in another place in the Budget for and expect to find as far as our Health Service is concerned? Is it an issue where we increasingly find more people complaining about waiting lists, complaining about different issues as far as the Health Service is concerned? 2355 If the answer to that is yes, then we should be supporting the Hon. Member, the leader of the Liberal Party on this situation. Vainstyr Loayreyder, there is only now me and the Ard-shirveishagh that has been in here the length of time that we have been in here. (Laughter) At one time, there was the convention that unless it was something that was actually damaging to society, leave was not a major issue. I 2360 have seen leave to many things that I have not agreed to in the long term, but I wanted the Hon. Members to do the situation of providing primary legislation on issues to debate. Vote against this thing if you feel that the Health Service is perfect. Vote against this proposal if you feel that we cannot get anywhere further as far as the Health Service is concerned, that is fair enough. But if you vote against this because of that, then that is one thing, but let us be 2365 honest in this House: this is something that is important. One of the failures there has been in this House is the lack of audit. This is the legislative process that will not happen overnight. When we talk about the Member behind me, the Hon. Member for Middle talking about, ‘We will do it later,’ this is not going to happen like that. This has to be created, a legislative framework needs to be developed, and that will take time. It will need an Appointed Day Order. 2370 I hope the newer Members will realise that the fact is that by voting for this, you are not actually voting for something that is going to happen tomorrow or in a fortnight’s time. This will have to be put into a legislative framework to do so, and be debated in this House, in the Upper Chamber, and will almost certainly be enabling legislation, not primary legislation. We will have to wait and see when it is drafted by the Attorney General’s. 2375 Hon. Members, I hope you support this proposal, otherwise you are deceiving your constituents when you put in your manifesto about the issue of the healthcare and wanting to improve healthcare. Everything needs audit and I believe that this is the way forward; we cannot afford not to have the cost – just like we could not afford not to have the cost with the CAA as far as things, otherwise you would have crashes every week around the world. 2380 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas, point of order.
Mr Watterson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Hon. Member is entirely justified in saying that Members are 2385 deceiving their constituents.
______122 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
The Speaker: Yes, I think really the Hon. Member should know better than to imply things like that. We will leave it at that, shall we? (Interjection by Mr Karran) Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas. 2390 Mr Quirk: Till the next time.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to say that I think the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Onchan, is 2395 actually being slightly misleading. I can say that as being one of the five people that voted for principle of an investigation of an independent health and social care regulator back in July, on 23rd July, making some remarks then that I did about the structural deficit, as I described it and as I perceive it in Health and Social Care. So this is not actually about the principle; this is actually about do we give leave at this time? There are a few questions I want to ask about that, which I 2400 hope can be addressed in summing up or by other speakers before we get to that stage. The first one is: is this motion actually clear enough? I am not sure it is. For instance, ‘regulator’ – what is a regulator? Is it a regulator process? Is it a regulator of the people? Is it a regulator of the products? Is it a regulator that the complaints are actually being handled properly and then passed to an ombudsman that is working properly? Massive issues that really 2405 need to be investigated, and are very important issues. I see this as being premature; because I do not think we have thought through those issues strongly enough. I am disappointed to only see health down there, because to me it is very important to see social care and health, and all those other things addressed and looked at together. What is independent? The mover today actually made a persuasive case as picked up by 2410 other people that this issue can be addressed in different ways has been different places. And what is independent? Where is this body going to be located? How is it going to relate to other bodies that could help it do its work, in the same way that we engage the West Midlands body to help us do our work? And finally, I hate this figure of £250,000 for the cost of regulator, because it says here the 2415 office, which has now been estimated to cost £250,000 for the Minister, but as far as I know, that number is likely to go back to the secret Oxera regulatory report on the cost of the gas regulator, when the figure of £250,000 was postulated and now it has become sacrosanct that this is going to cost £250,000. So I would say to the Hon. Member moving is that this is incredibly important principle, and I 2420 already demonstrated with my vote and my speech back in July that I accept that. However, I believe it is premature to bring it now. I do not think there is time in this remaining House to actually deal with these issues satisfactorily, and I believe a Private Member’s Bill is quite likely to fall as a consequence. Secondly, we do actually have a massive Health Services Bill coming up and that is exactly the 2425 sort of thing I would want reassurance from the Minister, to say that he is actually already doing the pre-legislative consulting about it and that that is exactly the sort of Bill that should go to a committee to be considered properly in a committee. So to me, the mover of this motion, with good intention, has actually got the opportunity to try and amend that Bill to actually achieve all of these purposes, to address the structural deficit we have in health and social care. 2430 And finally, we have got a newly appointed Member of this House, who is a newly appointed member of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee, and I hope that this is exactly the sort of issue – and exactly the sort of issues that I have tried to raise – which are actually being looked at inside that Policy Review Committee and that they can include it in their work plan for the coming year. 2435 And with that, unless the mover can do something incredible, I am minded to put on record that I will not actually be supporting leave to introduce at this stage, but my support for the principle remains undiluted.
______123 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
A Member: Hear, hear. Well said. 2440 The Speaker: Hon. Members the clock has beaten us. We shall resume at 2.30 when the next Member to be invited to speak will be Hon. Member for Glenfaba, Mr Boot. We resume at 2.30 p.m.
The House adjourned at 1.03 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.
A Bill to establish an independent health regulator – Debate continued – Motion lost
The Speaker: Please be seated, Hon. Members. 2445 Now, Hon. Members, we resume our consideration of the motion for leave to introduce in the name of Mrs Beecroft, and I call on the Hon. Member for Glenfaba, Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, after a seafood lunch, I hope this, my maiden speech will not be too fishy! 2450 But anyway, as a newly elected Member, I am only too aware of manifesto commitments and discussions about the Health Service on the doorstep. Post-election, I have tried to reassure constituents that we have a review in process and there as the Hon. Member, Mr Thomas pointed out, I am a newly elected or appointed Member of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee, which scrutinises, or can scrutinise, the Health Service, and I am sure will in the 2455 future. Bearing in mind cost constraints, I think the present proposal is premature and we should perhaps wait until the review is complete and leave the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee to get on with its work. (A Member: Hear, hear.) The analogy between the CAA and an independent regulator for the Health Service does not sit well with me. As someone involved in 2460 aviation regulation, there is a lot of discontent within the industry in the way in which the regulation is perpetrated and in particular, the cost and overregulation and there have been many calls for a lighter touch because of overregulation. Maybe the analogy here is that we already have the review process and a standing committee that scrutinises; perhaps we do not need an additional layer of expenditure. Maybe 2465 in the future, having spoken to the hon. proposer over lunch, a lower cost shared regulator may be appropriate, but at the moment I think it is premature. Thank you.
A Member: Hear, hear. 2470 The Speaker: I call the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Chief Minister, Mr Bell
The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I only have a couple of short points to make. 2475 First of all, I would urge Hon. Members, before they decide on this, to listen carefully to the comments made by the Minister for Health. The huge pressures that the Department is under at the moment, with various reviews going on from various different directions at considerable cost – does the Health Service at this stage need to introduce yet another layer on top of everything else? We know what the problems are. We are working very hard, as we have done 2480 for the last couple of years, now re-energised with the attention of the new Minister, to try and
______124 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
resolve these. We are, bit by bit, making progress. But if this was to go through now and be accepted, there would be not just more financial burden on the Health Service, which would have to come from somewhere else – it would either have to come from within the Health Service itself or from other Department – or it would, as I say, draw it away from other 2485 Departments’ priorities. Two points, though. First of all, I think someone mentioned that it has been tradition to vote in favour of leaves to introduce. It has been practice, but we are not obliged to do this, and I would urge Hon. Members, unless they feel confident that they can support this issue, it would be wrong to give leave to introduce, if only for one reason, and that is the legal draftsman. We 2490 are seriously struggling in the legal draftsmen department of the Attorney General in getting the time available to draft new legislation and to keep up with the regulations coming along. If this is passed with Members having no intention ultimately to pass legislation itself, then this is going to another burden placed on the Attorney General's office at a time when it is seriously creaking under the pressures of other Government activity. 2495 So I would urge Hon. Members, please, in no way dismissing the principle of what this resolution is about, but at this time, as the hon. previous speaker says, it is premature, and I would urge Hon. Members to vote against it. In doing so, Mr Speaker, could I congratulate the Member for Glenfaba on his excellent maiden speech. (Members: Hear, hear.) I am sure we will be hearing a great deal more of them. 2500 Thank you.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Michael.
Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I too congratulate Member for Glenfaba on his 2505 maiden speech. I just want to really pick up on the issue of outcomes here and to try and get to the bottom of what outcome the Hon. Member, who is moving this motion, is actually seeking, because I am just not clear. She is asking here for an independent health regulator and for connected purposes, but it appears to me that the National Health Service on the Isle of Man is already 2510 significantly well regulated and so closely linked to the UK, I just cannot see what an independent health regulator is actually going to achieve, or indeed is actually going to be able to achieve. There are 12 organisations in the UK known as health and social care regulators. Each organisation oversees one or more of the health and social care professions, by regulating these 2515 individual professionals across the UK, and of course the regulators are there to protect the public. So I just do not see how an independent, Isle of Man regulator is going to do anything else, as it appears to be inferred, other than confuse the situation. We already have the General Medical Council, which will be well-known to Members. It is regulating the professional doctors. We have got the Nursing and Midwifery Council regulating the nurses and midwives. There is the 2520 Health and Care Professionals Council, the General Dental Council, the Care Council for Wales, the General Chiropractic Council, the Optical Council, the Osteopathic Council, the Pharmaceutical Council, etc. Mr Speaker, I just cannot get the concept of what difference an Isle of Man independent health regulator is going to achieve, unless the Hon. Member who is moving this is really seeking an additional back-up to having an independent complaints 2525 regulator – which really is a different matter. I think we really need to be very clear on this because if we set off down the route of trying to legislate for an independent health regulator, we could run into serious difficulties without clear parameters as to what is actually trying to be achieved here and we could run into difficulties around the regulatory abilities of the GMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and 2530 the other regulatory bodies are regulating our healthcare professionals. The other matter, of course, is that we have recently, and are still spending millions of pounds on undertaking a very comprehensive review of the delivery of health care on this
______125 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
Island, that Members, including the Hon. Member who moved this Bill were fundamentally core to achieving. And I do think there is a valid argument to saying we really do want to wait until we 2535 have seen the outcome of that review. Otherwise, we are in danger of firstly doubling up on areas potentially, or getting ahead of the game, if you like, in terms of where that review is leading. And secondly, it may well be that that review indeed does not come up with any such recommendations about having a health regulator as such. The NHS as a whole is struggling as it is. We know there are financial problems there, and we 2540 know that there are issues with morale and indeed issues in recruitment. I think that we have to be very careful that we do not go down the route as politicians of adding further pressure to a system that is already creaking. The Minister, who of course is opposing this, is already under significant pressure as it is. Whilst I accept this may be some way down the line, nevertheless, the fact that we have no clear outcomes around this, we already have all these regulators in 2545 place anyway which are delivering this regulation. I think we need on some real charity around what is actually expected, and if it is a complaints ombudsman that the Hon. Member is looking to resolve – in other words, dealing with complaints and making recommendations of the changes – then I think she needs to be very explicit about that, and I think that a health regulator is not necessarily the right description 2550 for that. So unless the Hon. Member can come up with some magical explanation or clarification, exactly what she is trying to achieve, what outcomes are going to be delivered here … and I think we should be delivering outcomes. I do not think we should be just delivering a position where we have a regulator in statute, like we have an Auditor General in statute, and yet we have never done anything about bringing that to fruition, because I think, particularly at 2555 this stage of the democratic process, in terms of the parliamentary stage, but more importantly because of the financial implications and the time implications, we should not be wasting people's time, engaged in matters that are not really going to take us towards any real beneficial outcome. So I look forward to the Member’s explanation, because there is a small chance she could 2560 convince me, but I doubt it.
The Speaker: I call on the mover to reply, Mrs Beecroft.
Mrs Beecroft: Thank you Mr Speaker. 2565 I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to this, because I do think it is a very important debate and it is about a principle as much as anything. If I can, I will try and address all the concerns, and comment as we go along. Minister Quayle said that he was disappointed in my asking for leave to introduce this legislation. I have to say that the disappointment is reciprocated in this instance. If I can remind 2570 people what I said and what Mr Quayle said, I said this is to be ready to come in after West Midlands have finished their reviews, at an appropriate time. I did not say it was to come in right now, and if I could remind Minister Quayle of just what he said in the October sitting of Tynwald, when I gave my full support to his strategy, but was disappointed that there was no mention of an independent health regulator, and this is quoting from Hansard. Minister Quayle said:
We then come on to Mrs Beecroft. I thank her very much her support … and plateauing costs.
2575 I think maybe he needs to look at the Hansard for that, because I am not sure what that is.
Independent health regulator – bless her. She never gives up.
I will forgive him for being patronising in this instance. He carried on to say:
I think when we discussed this at the time, she has to remember, I never said no forever. I just said that the Health and Social Care Department is under such intense inspection at the moment that it would be absolutely mad, in my opinion, to bring in a regulator in the middle of all the inspection work that is being done. ______126 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
I quite agree with him, I have not said anything that disagrees with that. He went on:
However, I did not rule it out once the dust had settled,
– again I am in agreement –
if it was still felt that there was a need for an independent regulator in the future, then it could well happen. So I do not want to say I am going to support it in the future but I did not say I was totally opposed to that idea. I hope that cheers her up.
2580 And it did to the point that I thought, well let's get the legislation ready when the dust has settled and when all these reviews are finished, and when it is the appropriate time to have an independent health regulator.
Mr Quayle: Excuse me, Mr Speaker, would the Hon. Member like to give way, so I could just 2585 clarify a point which I think is very important?
The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft?
Mr Quayle: And I thank her for giving way as it is something I do not like to use too often. 2590 Can I just we are not that far away, Mrs Beecroft and myself, Hon. Members, but there is one fundamental issue where I think she has misinterpreted what I have said, so I just wanted to clarify to you. When we know what the problems are and have the recommendations back, then we can build, if it is required, and that is the ‘if’, a regulation and inspection system that is relevant for 2595 the Isle of Man, based on the findings of our years of inspection. If we go ahead and try and draft something now, when we do not know what is going to be found, then we would be wasting – as the Chief Minister has eloquently put it – legislative drafting time and we might have come up with something that is totally irrelevant with what we require, going forward. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2600 The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft, thank you.
Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I think we are not that far off, but I think we are that close – and ‘that close’ is the ‘if’ word. Two little letters, ‘if’ – if we need a regulator. Of 2605 course we need a regulator! No matter what West Midlands’ reviews come across, we need a regulator going forward. When our health services are perfect, we need a regulator. There are no if’s about this, so yes we are very close but that ‘if’ word is keeping up apart. I have applauded the Minister for the actions that he has taken and I know he has worked very hard in achieving the progress that he has. I am not knocking that, I never have. And he 2610 thanked me for his support – I just read it out, so he knows I am supportive of what he is doing, what he is trying to achieve. He says he has got all these different committees, he quoted them out before. Yes, he has got a lot of committees and again, I applaud him for bringing those committees into being, or for continuing the ones that were already there. We need them. I am not arguing against that, but 2615 they are committees – they report. They do not regulate. They do not have teeth, and that it is difference in that. I thank Mr Robertshaw for his support, because I know he is in favour of the principle and that is what this is about today. It is the principle of the need for a health regulator. Again, he mentioned the cost which was corrected by Minister Quayle later on. It is Minister Quayle who 2620 has brought this 250,000, but I will address the cost element all in one go, if I may, because
______127 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
many Members have brought this up, and it is a valid point. But there are arguments that I will show to you why it is not rational. Again, Mr Hall mentioned the cost. I would throw in a couple of points actually, just to keep Members’ interests on costs as we go along, a little bit. At the moment we have, from memory, 2625 and I should have looked at it before today, something like £7 million in a medical indemnity fund. But I believe that the last accounts said we actually needed something like £9 million to cover all the possible outstanding claims or what the auditors felt was a sensible figure. Now, if having an independent regulator reduces that figure, does that not go towards paying some of those costs? (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) 2630 If we had a regulator, it would improve morale within the Health Service, because they know that they have a final backstop as well, somebody that they can go to. As well as the patients in all this, the staff need support. If they know that they have got a last resort, somewhere they can go to when they are really concerned about something, staff morale would be improved. The Chief Minister agreed with me this morning when we were talking about a living wage, how 2635 much a good staff morale improves performance. Of course I thank my seconder, Mr Karran, and for his valid points, and his support. Mr Thomas brought up, he said he was one of the five who supported me in the July sitting of Tynwald, and I thank him for that. He did say that if I could be, I think his words were, ‘incredible enough’, he might change his mind and support me today. So let's see if I can be incredible 2640 enough for him. He said that the role of the regulator, its remit was not clear. Well, it will not be clear today. I am asking for the principle to be approved to bring the detail back. And I have said I will work with Members. If anyone has got concerns about the detail, let’s work together, let’s get this done. We can come up with something that we can all be proud of, that we can all get behind, 2645 that we can all support. It is again, independence: how is that going to be achieved? That is the detail. The cost, and I say I will come back to that; and is there time? I believe there is time. If there is a will, there is a way (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) and even if it takes longer, it will be there as far as we have got, for the next administration to have a look at. I know they have got a start again with leave to 2650 introduce and having all the readings again, but it will still be there. It is something as a basis that they can work from, they will not have to start from scratch, when it becomes more and more apparent, should this fail now, and it will become more apparent that we do need this regulator. The work the West Midlands have done, I think is exceptionally valuable and particularly for 2655 the new Members, I would encourage them to read the reports on the website. It makes it clear that we are not up to standard. Some of the areas of best practice, we perform less than 40% of what we should do and that is not good enough. And I know that great efforts are being made to raise the standard of our healthcare, but as I said before, even it was perfect tomorrow, I would still want an independent health regulator, because that maintains that high standard that we 2660 are trying to achieve. How do we know that is not going to slip back if we do not have some sort of oversight on this? I point out that the Healthcare Commission back in 2007 cost us money. West Midlands have cost us money, but it would have been money that is well spent if the recommendations are acted on. And if we had a regulator, would we need to be paying for these expensive reviews 2665 every so often, after things have started to go wrong – another way we can save money. And again, coming back to points that Mr Thomas made, and actually the Chief Minister as well, said about the legal draftspeople, their limited time. There is, and I know all Departments are struggling with it at the moment trying to get their legislation through, trying to get it drafted to bring to us. But my understanding is that a percentage of draftpeople’s time can be 2670 allocated to Private Members’ Bills, and at the moment there are no others going through the system that I am aware of. So there should certainly be enough free time from a draftsman’s point of view, from that perspective, to allow it to proceed quite quickly.
______128 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
So I have said before, even if there are delays and it has not completed all the readings, we have not had all the readings, it will be in a format that the next administration can actually go 2675 ‘Well, we are just going to change this bit and use that as our basis and start again.’ It will not be just a complete waste of time. I do not think it is a complete waste of time anyway, because it has given Members a chance to air their concerns, which most of it seems to be coming back to cost, and the fact that people think it is premature, I do not see how it can be premature, what are we waiting for? We do not 2680 need to wait for the West Midlands reviews to be finished because it is needed anyway. As soon as they are finished we need something in place. I think I have addressed Mr Thomas’s points, so I hope I have been incredible enough that I can make him change his mind and support me, when I have finished the other points that I know that he will listen to, because he is very diligent. 2685 Mr Boot mentioned that he is on the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee, and that that is part of the scrutinising. Yes it is, all these committees scrutinise, but they scrutinise after the event. They are not something that can come in and say, ‘I want to see this now.’ – to walk into the hospital, do a spot check and say, ‘I'd like to think to see that please, see if everything is going alright.’ 2690 And this is another reason, because an independent regulator would actually improve the benchmarking that we should be doing. And then you can actually see by the benchmarking by the statistics, the data that is coming out, you can see which areas are slipping. And he can say to the Minister for Health, what you doing about this? And then if he does not get a satisfactory answer, he may follow it up. 2695 This is another thing. It is almost like having an audit of a company. If you have sufficient internal control, sufficient control that the auditors can place reliance on, like your internal audit function, your financial controls, etc. with a company, it does not cost that much to have an audit. The time audits become very expensive is when the auditors look at something and it does not stack up and they need to investigate it further. If an auditor can be satisfied with the 2700 strength of the internal controls, it does not cost that much money. That is where all these committees that the Minister is quite right in having, that is where they come in because they will have done a lot of the work and collated a lot of the data and asked a lot of the questions that a regulator would be asking. So it does not need to be as expensive. It is not overregulation we do not have regulation; we have review. We have committees 2705 making recommendations. We have reviews. We do not have regulation. And again I come back, I made the point before: I believe that it is not premature. I am glad the Chief Minister is not against the principle of this. He mentioned about the pressures of draftspeople, I think I have already addressed that point, and the financial burden, I think I have partially addressed that point. 2710 Mr Cannan said, what is the outcome? And we are already significantly well regulated. No, we are not. Individual professions are well regulated. We have the GMC and all the others, I am not denying that and they play a very significant role, but we do not have a regulator. If all these other organisations that regulate the professions involved in health were sufficient, why do all our neighbours and our competitors have an independent regulator? It 2715 does not make sense does it? If they think they need a regulator, and yet they have got the regulations for these professions. Sometimes the professions are well regulated, and their management is not, and the management is not doing its function correctly, and things can happen that the professionals do not like. They have nowhere to go apart from to their professional bodies, if we are employing them that is not good enough. We should have a 2720 regulator that they can go to when they work for us here, the same that every comparable jurisdiction has. And again Mr Cannan mentioned the cost and waiting for the outcome of the reviews. Again I say, what is the point of waiting for the outcome of the reviews before we start introducing this legislation? We are going to need it anyway. The reviews are just that. Are we going to wait
______129 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
2725 another five years, and then find another company or another organisation to come in and do reviews all over again that we actually do not have to take any notice of? That happened with the Healthcare Commission in 2007. There were over 70 recommendations. Years later, it had not all been carried out. Some of the regulations had been overtaken and things have changed, a couple of them – yes, I will agree with that. But not the 2730 majority that were never, ever carried out and remain outstanding to this day. Mr Cannan said we should wait and see if the reviewers recommend a regulator. Well, they are not going to. It is not their remit to do that. They have been given a specific remit and specific areas, that they are to look at and report on, and to say whether we need a regulator or not is not part of that remit. It is not their terms of reference. So I am afraid you will be waiting a 2735 long time if you think that they are going to report on that. Just looking for any points that I have not addressed, Mr Speaker, I think I have covered most of them. I think it boils down to two real areas of concern that I think Members have, and that is the cost and whether we are doing this prematurely. I do hope I have addressed the fact that we are not doing this prematurely, and as for the cost, I said in my opening comments that we 2740 should try to form an alliance with one of our neighbours, or a group of neighbours – maybe the Channel Islands, maybe the North-West of England. Maybe we could do some service in return with them – particularly if it is the Channel Islands, where they are trying now to get a regulator. Maybe we could share one, or maybe we could go and review an area for them and they could come here and review an area for us. I do not know. To be quite honest, I am actually really 2745 open as to the detail of this. It is the principle that matters and there are ways of getting the cost down. So I am not being prescriptive about the detail, because I am not even saying that I have all the best ideas of the detail yet. I am saying let’s get the principle agreed. We can work on the detail and everybody can input into that detail. There must be far more suggestions in people's 2750 minds and in the public's minds as well, and the professionals’ minds too, when they get to hear if this is going ahead, I am sure they will want to contribute to that. And we could come up with some very good ideas and something that would be robust enough and cheap enough to take us forward. I hope I have addressed everybody. If I have missed anything out, I apologise. I do hope 2755 Members will support the principle of this Bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is that set out at Item 5 in the name of Mrs Beecroft, leave to introduce. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The noes have it. 2760 A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Mr Bell Mr Hall Mr Boot Mr Karran Mr Cannan Mr Robertshaw Mr Cregeen The Speaker Mr Harmer Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Singer Mr Skelly Mr Thomas
The Speaker: With 5 votes for, 14 against, the motion therefore fails to carry. ______130 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2015
6. ELECTION OF A MEMBER TO THE HOUSE OF KEYS STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
House of Keys Standing Orders Committee – Mr Malarkey elected
To elect a member to the House of Keys Standing Orders Committee to replace Mrs B Cannell. The current members of the Committee are Mr Speaker (ex-officio), Mr Cannan, Mr Karran, Mr Quirk and Mr Watterson.
The Speaker: Hon. Members, we turn now to the final Item, election of a Member to the House of Keys Standing Orders Committee. This is to replace the vacancy of Mrs Brenda Cannell. 2765 Mr Quirk.
Mr Quirk: Mr Speaker, I would like to propose Mr Malarkey, the Member for South Douglas.
Mr Cregeen: I beg to second. 2770 Mr Karran: I propose the Hon. Member for South Douglas, Mrs Beecroft.
Mr Cannan: Second that.
2775 The Speaker: Hon. Members, we have two candidates, shall we leave it at that? We go for a vote in a moment.
A ballot took place and electronic voting resulted as follows:
Vote Results Mr Malarkey 13 Mrs Beecroft 6
The Speaker: Mr Malarkey received 13 votes; Mrs Beecroft, 6 votes. Mr Malarkey is therefore elected to the Standing Orders Committee. Hon. Members, that concludes the business of the House today. The House will now stand 2780 adjourned until next sitting, to take place at 10 o’clock on 10th November in this Chamber.
The House adjourned at 3.03 p.m.
______131 K133