Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT
DOUGLAS, Tuesday, 15th July, 1986 at 10.30 a.m.
Present: The Lieutenant-Governor (His Excellency Major General Laurence New, C.B., C.B.E.). In the Council: The Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Arthur Henry Attwell), The Attorney-General (Mr. T.W. Cain), Messrs. R.J.G. Anderson, A.A. Catlin, Mrs. B.Q. Hanson, Mr. E.G. Lowey, Dr. E.J. Mann, Messrs. J.N. Radcliffe and E.M. Ward, B.E.M., with Mr. T.A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council. In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.), Messrs. W.K. Quirk, W.A. Gilbey, J.D.Q. Cannan, Mrs. C.M. Christian, Messrs. S.L. Morrey, J.H. Kneale, R.A. Payne, P. Karran, M.R. Walker, N.Q. Cringle, C.H. Faragher, Dr. D.L. Moore, Messrs. C.A. Cain, A.R. Bell, B. May, G.V.H. Kneale, E.C. Irving, C.B.E., A.C. Duggan, D.C. Cretney, D.F.K. Delaney, D. Martin, J.A. Brown, with Mr. R.B.M. Quayle, Clerk of Tynwald.
The Lord Bishop took the prayers.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Governor: Hon members, we have apologies for absence from the Hon. President of the Legislative Council, who is attending a meeting in London with the Air Minister, and from the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Maddrell, and, from 3p.m. onwards tomorrow, from Mr. G.V.H. Kneale, who will be absent because of a meeting of the Council of Local Education Authorities in Coventry.
TRIBUTES TO THE LATE HUGH MACLEOD
The Governor: Hon. members, since we last met a distinguished former member of Tynwald, the late Hugh MacLeod, has died and I would like now to call upon the hon. Mr. Speaker to pay tribute to him.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, when a hundred years ago our national poet Brown penned these lines:
Excellent Manxman, Scotia gave you birth, But you were ours, being apt to take the print Of Island forms, the mood, the tone, the tint,
Apologies for Absence Tributes to the Late Hugh MacLeod T2244 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Nor missed the ripples of the larger mirth. A lovely soul has sought the silent firth: he could well have been writing of our former colleague, Hugh Duncan Campbell MacLeod, whose passing we mourn today. If you search the register of the House of Keys, you will find that over the centuries there has been one MacLeod entered since the register came into being in 1417, and that entry relates to the service of Hugh MacLeod who joined us in 1962 and served until 1976. In that sense he was unique, but he was unique in so many ways: unique in that his connection with the Isle of Man was probably the strongest that any member could ever claim; the clan's name father, Leod, of which he was a direct descendant, was the son of Olaf, King of Mann and the Islands for a period of 50 years from 1187 to 1237, and at the dawn of heraldry the back galley was the emblem of the old Manx kings and it was quartered in the arms of the MacLeods until the seventeenth century, when they adopted instead a quartering of the three legs of Man. The historian of the clan, Dr. Grant, once summed up its character saying, 'Throughout their history there runs a thread of tenacity that worthily fulfils their motto — "Hold Fast." In that sense, Mac, as he was familiarly known to us, was a worthy holder of tradition. Born in Scotland in 1901, he was educated at Dollar Academy in Perthsire and was, in that setting of his youth, a friend of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, known to us affectionately as the Queen Mum. Instead of going on to university when he finished at Dollar, he joined, under age, a Scottish infantry regiment and saw service in France, winning an M.C., for gallantry, and latet -served in India. On demobilisation he returned to his studies, this time at Oxford, where he gained a degree in Zoology and later became a Fellow of the Royal Zoological Society. Many members will recall with delight the way in which he reeled off the classic descriptions of forms of wildlife and animal diseases in agricultural debates as he addressed himself to a subject on which he was a master. Leaving Oxford, he took up big game hunting as a career and subsequently, as so often proves to be the case, turned his affections and skill to the collection and preservation of rare species as part of the wildlife preservation campaign. His journeyings took him to many parts of the world: Africa, the Amazon basin, the Himalayas — you name them, he had been there. He was to settle down in Britain with extensive farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Scotland and became an acknowledged expert as a sheep breeder. It was at this time he gained his first experience in public service as a member of the Buckinghamshire County Council. Retiring with his wife to the Isle of Man but maintaining a Scottish farming interest in a company at his Craigdarroch holding he quickly associated himself with the Island community. Election to the German Parish Commissioners was to be the introduction to service with the Education Authority and subsequently in the House of Keys. In this setting his interests were wide-ranging: he chaired the Assessment Board, he served on the Tourist Board, the Social Security Board, the Board of Education, the Government Property Trustees, the War Pensions Committee and I am sure the Health Services Board has never had a member so consistent as a visitor attending Noble's Hospital. He also served on the Forestry, Mines and Lands Board, the Manx Museum and National Trust, the Whitley Council and discharged many committee responsibilities. A very loyal patriot, he was proud of his ancestry, his family links with the Island
Tributes to the Late Hugh MacLeod
TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2245
and exalted in the rich Celtic flavour of his upbringing and culture. A worshipper of the works of Burns, he could sit and relate his poems seemingly endlessly, and he was always in great demand on Manx Scottish Society occasions. It became traditional that he should deliver in his own inimitable way the Ode to the Haggis on Burns night and if Mac's name was on the toast list you knew you were in for an evening of fun and fascinating wit. Perhaps surprisingly for a Scot, he was not interested in wealth; it was people that he loved, broad in his sympathies and • interests, generous with his encouragement and support. To the brash and foolish he could be mischievous or caustic in his comments, as we well learned. To the • • hesitant, lacking in confidence, he was an encourager. Today, Your Excellency, we part from our Agenda to salute a prodigious man who, in modern parlance, we would possibly describe as a rich character and when all the things we will otherwise be concerned with today are all so much history, dross, or nothing more, the things we are about now will still matter — the issues of life, death, the meaning of life, man, God, accountability for what one has done with one's life, and I would suggest that Mac's monument is not cut in bronze or cut in stone, but writ large in the lives of those men and women whose lives he has touched and enriched. As to his family and friends, we extend our sympathy in their loss. I would suggest to the Court and all those mourn him that his epitaph may be properly found in the words of the poet he revered, Robert Burns, who wrote:
As good a man now lies at rest As 'ere God with his image blest; The friend of man, the friend of truth, The friend of age and guide of youth.
Few hearts like his with virtue warm'd, Few heads with knowledge so informed; If there's another world he lives in bliss, If there is none, he made the best of this.
The Governor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I call on Mr. Anderson on behalf of the President of the Legislative Council.
Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, as a member who sat for ten years with Hugh MacLeod, I would like to be identified with the words of Mr. Speaker. I do not in any way try to emulate his speech this morning which has been so adequate, but as someone who has sat by him for ten years I would wish to be identified. I am a sure that the name of Hugh MacLeod in our minds will live on for a very long time. His sense of humour, his devotion to the hospital and the Board of Education will be long remembered by the hon. members of this Court who have served with him, and it gives me pleasure to identify with the speech so adequately presented here this morning by Mr. Speaker.
The Governor: Hon. members, may I suggest that we stand for a few moments in memory of Hugh MacLeod.
Tributes to the Late Hugh MacLeod T2246 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
The Court stood in silence.
The Governor: Thank you, hon. members.
LETTER FROM H.R.H. PRINCE EDWARD
The Governor: Before we move on with the business before us, hon. members, you will be, I think, interested to hear that I have received a very charming letter from His Royal Highness Prince Edward. In it he says amongst other things, 'It was a great honour to be asked to preside at the Tynwald ceremony and I would be grateful if you would convey my thanks to the members of the Legislative Council and of the House of Keys for their kindness in allowing me to do so.' He then mentions the other events including the second day when, as hon. members will know, the Isle of Man contributed some £30,000 to the Duke of Edinburgh's appeal project. He finishes his letter, 'It was a most memorable and enjoyable visit and I am very grateful to all the Manx people who I met for their kindness, friendliness and goodwill.' Might I be allowed, hon. members, to add my own comments, that it was a Tynwald Day that I shall never forget in my life and I believe was an enormously important day in this year in this. Manx Heritage Year's history.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ROYAL ASSENT
The Governor: Hon. members, I have to announce that Royal Assent was given to the following Acts on 2nd July 1986: the Burials Act 1986, the Charities Act 1986, and the Civil Service Act 1986, and to the following Acts on 11th July 1986: the Education Act 1986, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 1986, the Data Protection Act 1986 and the Constitution (Executive Council) (Amendment) Act 1986.
BILLS FOR SIGNATURE
The Governor: We have seven Bills for signature: the Companies Bill, the Minerals Bill, the Petroleum Bill, the Prison and Youth Custody ill, the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, the Non-Resident Company Duty Bill, and the Food (Emergency Provisions) Bill. If you will agree we will continue our business while these are being signed.
It was agreed.
PAPERS LAID BEFORE THE COURT
The Governor: I call on the Clerk to lay papers.
Letter from H.R.H. Prince Edward Announcement of Royal Assent — Bills for Signature Papers Laid Before the Court TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2247
The Clerk: I lay before the Court:-
Loan Sanctions, Revocation of —
Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 — Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 1986. Payment of Members' Expenses (Insurance Authority) Order 1986.
1.11 Fishing Vessels - Fishing Vessels (Temporary Support) (Amendment) Scheme 1986.
Police Acts 1962 to 1982 - Isle of Man Police (Amendment) Regulations 1986.
Legal Aid Act 1986 - Legal Aid (Financial Resources) Regulations 1986. Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1986. Legal Aid (Matrimonial Proceedings) Regulations 1986. Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1986.
Isle of Man Judicature Act 1883 - Rules of the High Court of Justice (Instalment Orders etc.) 1986.
Judicature (Matrimonial Causes) Act 1976 - Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 1986.
Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1978 - Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1978 (Designation of Reciprocating Countries) Order 1986.
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1985 - Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986. Fixed Penalty (Procedure) Regulations 1986.
Representation of the People Acts 1951 to 1985 - Election Rules (Amendment) (No.3) Order 1986.
Highway Act 1927 — Jurby Day (Road) Order 1986.
Forestry Act 1984 - Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986.
Local Government Act 1985 - Local Government Act 1985 (Amendment) Order 1986.
Civil Service Act 1962 - Isle of Man Civil Service Order 1986.
Papers Laid Before the Court T2248 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Merchant Shipping - Merchant Shipping (Safety Provisions) (Application) (No.1) Order 1986. Hovercraft Act 1968 (Application) Order 1986. Merchant Shipping (Masters and Seamen) (Application) Order 1986. Shipping Casualties (Formal Investigations) (Application) Order 1986.
Constitutional Issues - Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Issues.
Employment Committee of Executive Council - Fourth Interim Report of the Employment Committee of Executive Council.
Committee of Privilege - Report of the Committee of Privilege on the Statement of the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of Mrs. Joan Mann and others.
Petition for Redress of Grievance - Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Petition for Redress of Grievance presented by Bernard Charles Potter.
Telecommunications Act 1984 — Licence granted by the Governor in Council to Manx Telecom Limited.
Islands Conference of the Peripheral Maritime Regions - Report of the Isle of Man Delegation to the Islands Conference of the Peripheral Maritime Regions of the E.E.C. 1986.
Social Security - Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1986.
Summary Jurisdication Acts 1927 to 1960; Summary Jurisdiction (Custodianship) Rules 1986.
Domestic Proceedings Act 1983 - Custodian (Reports) Regulations 1986.
Appointed Day Orders - Summary Jurisdiction Act 1986 (Appointed Day) Order 1986. Licensing (Amendment) Act 1986 (Appointed Day) Order 1986. Domestic Proceedings Act 1983 (Appointed Day) (No.3) Order 1986. Legal Aid Act 1986 (Appointed Day) (No.1) Order 1986. Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1986 (Appointed Day) Order 1986. Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1986 (Appointed Day) Order 1986. Insurance Act 1986 (Appointed Day) Order 1986.
Annual Reports - First Report of the Public Lottery Trust.
Papers Laid Before the Court TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2249
Report of the Isle of Man Civil Defence Committee for the year ended 31st March 1986. Report of H.M. Prison Isle of Man for the year ended 31st March 1985. Report of the Isle of Man Civil Service Commission for the year ended 31st March 1985.
Local Government Board's approval to Petitions - (1) Petition of Peel Town Commissioners to the board for approval to the lease of the Scout Headquarters, North View Lane, Peel, to the 3rd Peel Sea Scout Group for a period of 21 years.
(2) Petition of Douglas Corporation for authority to borrow £10,000, repayable within 20 years, to defray the cost of cavity fill and external door draught proofing in 50 dwellings on the Pulrose Estate, being Phase I of a scheme. This approval is subject to the following conditions - (a) the reduction of the amount to be borrowed from £10,000 to £8,600; (b) the loan being repayable within a period of 5 years from the date of borrowing; and (c) work on any additional dwellings to meet the petition sum receiving the prior approval of the board's Architect and Planning Officer.
(3) Petition of Ramsey Town Commissioners for authority to borrow £13,200, repayable within 25 years, to defray the cost of Phase I of a Street Lighting Replacement Programme. This approval is subject to the following conditions:— (a) the loan being repayable within a period of 10 years from the date of borrowing; and (b) loan charges incorrectly stated as £4,151.60 on the petition document should be amended to the correct figure of £1,662.57.
(4) Petition of Peel and Western District Housing Committee for authority to borrow £30,000, repayable within 20 years, to defray the cost of replacement of electrical heating with gas heating and domestic hot water supply in all 24 bungalows at Westlands Elderly Persons' Complex, Peel. This approval is subject to the following condition:— The loan being repayable within a period of 10 years from the date of borrowing.
PETITION OF DOUGLAS CORPORATION TO BORROW A SUM RE CAVITY FILLING AND DRAUGHTPROOFING ON PULROSE ESTATE - PAPER LAID BEFORE THE COURT AMENDED
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, amongst the papers laid before the Court this morning by the learned Clerk has been an approval to a petition in respect of the
Petition of Douglas Corporation to Borrow a Sum Re Cavity Filling and Draughtproofing on Pulrose Estate — Paper Laid Before the Court Amended T2250 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Douglas Corporation. The petition to which the approval requires amendment is that of the Douglas Corporation, and it is the one at the bottom of page 3 of our Agenda, for authority to borrow £10,000 for the cost of cavity filling and external door draughtproofing in 50 dwellings on the Pulrose Estate. The amendment required is the deletion of proviso (c). Your Excellency, I would apologise to yourself and hon. members for this procedure, but the amendment which was required by the Treasury was not available in time for inclusion in the Agenda and, because it relates to a document laid before, it cannot be the subject of formal amendment.
The Governor: I thank the Chairman of the Local Governmment Board. Is any • action required, learned Clerk?
The Clerk: No, sir.
The Governor: Thank you.
PROCEDURAL
The Governor: Well now, hon. members, we have some hard pounding ahead of us, I think, and although the Question Paper which we will come to in a moment is unaccustomed in its brevity with only 14 9,1,01 answers, we do have a great deal of work in the Agenda and in the Supplementary Agendas that may be put before us. I think it might be a very wise step if at this stage we agreed in principle how we are going to handle all this business. I would propose, hon. members, that we work our way through today, with the finishing of the Question Paper and so on, until about 4.10 when we could break for tea and then, predictably as we always try to, take petitions at 4.30. Hon. members, I would then propose that we start work again and go through until about 7.00, when the learned Clerk has arranged for sherry and sandwiches and coffee for those who would prefer it . . .
Mr. Anderson: I will have black coffee!
The Governor: Black coffee for those who would prefer it! (Laughter) — and white wine and sandwiches at about 7p.m., after which I propose, hon. members, that, in accordance with the letter which came to you from the learned Clerk at my request, we should work on until 9.00 tonight to get some of that work under our belts. In principle, hon. members, are you happy with that plan for the first day?
It was agreed.
PASSENGER CARRYING SHIPS IN 1987 TOURIST SEASON - QUESTION BY MR. DELANEY
The Governor: Then we turn to the Question Paper and I call upon the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney, to ask the question standing in his name.
Procedural Passenger Carrying Ships in 1987 Tourist Season — Question by Mr. Delaney
• TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2251
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of Executive Council:
By what date to you expect to be informed of the number of passenger carrying ships which will be in service for the 1987 tourist season?
The Governor: 1 call upon the Chairman of the Executive Council, Dr. Mann.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, the final decision on the frequency of service will be determined by the company in the early weeks of September and the brochure finally announcing the frequency of sailings will take place in October, but, as I think the hon. member is aware, the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company has announced that it will be withdrawing the Manx Viking from the Isle of Man service, which will leave the company with the ro-ro vessel Tynwald and two side-loaders as passenger carriers. However, in conjunction with this change in operation, the vast majority of freight will be carried in future on the cargo ro-ro vessel Peveril. Concern has already been expressed to the company that the proposals will result in inadequate carrying capacity being available to cater for any expansion in tourist traffic or an inability to cope with traffic at peak periods such as the T.T. week. The company has given assurances that it would be able to deal with foreseeable demand for shipment of passengers or vehicles. In support of such assurances it has said that if all its vessels were to make a double trip in any 24-hour period, which they are quite able to do, the capacity is available to ferry 8,800 passengers and 600 cars per day, a nominal 60,000 passengers per week and 4,000 cars. In its busiest week in 1985, 29th July to 4th August, the company carried fewer than 20,000 passengers and under one-and-a-half thousand cars. In the busiest month, July, passengers carried last year were just under 65,000. The company has said that of course it cannot guarantee that on any peak Saturday morning every person who wishes to travel will be accommodated. However, in fairness, it has to be said that no commercial concern can afford to have spare shipping capacity available for, say, ten days a year which will not otherwise be required and this was always the case with the previous company. The company has also said that it would not in any event envisage running 42 sailings a week but it believes that these figures do put fears as to its ability to cater for any reasonably foreseeable demand into perspective.
Mr. Delaney: I would thank the chairman for the reply which has been given to him by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, whose operations are for the benefit of their shareholders and not directly for the benefit of the people of the Island. Will the Chairman of Executive Council give an undertaking that, rather than wait for the welfare of the people of the Isle of Man, particularly the seven- • and-a-half thousand people concerned with their livelihoods from the tourist industry, he will make direct pressure on the company either to give assurance that they will have at least the same capacity to carry, even though in the T.T. period as he has indicated in his reply we this year lost one-and-a-half thousand passengers — a continuing deterioration — in the tourist industry for which we are all responsible for those seven-and-a-half thousand people? Will he take direct action as the leader of this Government to either ensure that company gets another passenger carrying vessel or takes action in some other way
Passenger Carrying Ships in 1987 Tourist Season — Question by Mr. Delaney T2252 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 to get a ship brought on stream that we as a Government will have to carry out the operations required to ensure that those seven-and-a-half thousand people and the rest of the Manx community can look forward to at least a similar sort of future income as they are trying to derive at this present moment?
Mr. Bell: A supplementary, Your Excellency. Could the hon. chairman give this Court any indication as to whether the Steam Packet Company has made any back-up arrangements in case of breakdown for the now reduced service which will be operating next year? We have had considerable experience of breakdown and disruption over this last couple of years with the existing operation which has caused a considerable amount of damage to the tourist industry; are we now going to see the same pattern developing again with this reduced fleet which will be operating?
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I can assure members, firstly, that there is a continuing discussion going on with the company; I have had a short session even before we came into this Court this morning. We will be keeping that up during the coming weeks to ensure that we get the maximum passenger carrying capacity. I also understand that the Tourist Board is in continuous contact with the company at the moment to try and resolve some of the peak period problems, but I think there has to be an understanding of the change in the style of operation. I think that of course the shifting of freight largely onto the Peveril will certainly increase the capacity for larger vehicles and more smaller vehicles on the ordinary sailings, which should turn round that much faster. There will, of course, be always available one of the side-loaders for coming on stream instantly if there was a failure of one or other, but of course one can shift some of the capacity from one to the other anyway. But I think the answer to both questions is that we are still trying to resolve these problems during the coming week and certainly before we come to the ultimate concern of issuing the winter schedule.
Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Your Excellency. The chairman in his initial reply indicated that it would be September before he would know the outcome of what the sailing pattern is going to be in November when they actually get what is referred to as their timetable for the 1987 season. Will the chairman, instead of waiting for the Steam Packet Company to come to that date when it is far too late for the Tourist Board to start advertising and marketing what is left of the Isle of Man tourist industry to the potential customers, take action during this recess as we will not have the ability to question the chairman on what action he has taken in the next three months? Does he not understand the necessity for action on behalf of the Government rather than dialogue?
Dr. Mann: I can assure the hon. member that we will be in contact continuously during the recess and we are perfectly well aware of our responsibilities. Further than that, of course, I think it is also fair, not as a spokesman of the company but as a spokesman of any passenger carrying or vehicle carrying organisation, that theirs is not the ultimate responsibility for the demand of the tourist industry; they are there to meet the demand created.
Passenger Carrying Ships in 1987 Tourist Season — Question by Mr. Delaney TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2253
The Speaker: Being aware, Your Excellency, of the concern of the Manx people with regard to the present policy, would the chairman give us an assurance that Executive Council have in mind a possible alternative way of dealing with the problem of sea transport or of giving consideration to an alternative manner of dealing with sea transport other than through the Steam Packet Company?
Dr. Mann: The company, which I am not here to apologise for, is clearly using the most efficient operation to meet the demand that is currently produced by the tourist industry. They will have to decide how they meet that demand as a public company. I entirely agree that we should always maintain the other options of additional services if those can be seen to be viable. There is no statutory monopoly and you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is no statutory monopoly, nor is there going to be a monopoly by this Government.
Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Your Excellency. Realising the difficult position the chairman and Executive Council find themselves in in relation to a private concern, in the discussions that have taken place with the chairman and the directors of this company, were the matters raised that I asked in private in relation to the fall in bunkering of these ships — that is to say, a 40 per cent. drop in the last several months — that no reduction has been passed on to the customers and it is generally accepted the high cost of transport is causing the reductions we are seeing in the arrival figures, particularly the fourteen-and-a-half thousand lost to us in June and the continuing loss that is going to occur in July? The company designing its passenger carrying capacity to what is coming in due to their own methods of charging and not taking down reductions that are justified to the travelling public is a sort of aspiring circle that would take us into disaster.
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, is it not true that to blame any reduction in number of tourists to the Island on the Steam Packet is a gross over-simplification at least, since many other resorts, including our friends in the Channel Islands and many United Kingdom resorts, are also suffering a great diminution in tourism this year?
Mr. Delaney: Twenty-six per cent.?
The Speaker: Your Excellency, as the activities of this company have resulted positively in a diminution in the tourist trade returns, would the chairman answer my question as to whether or not Executive Council are giving consideration to possible alternatives in the way of maintaining a transport link with the Isle of Man, recognising that the tourist trade is virtually in ruins?
Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, does the chairman consider that there should be a statutory monopoly and, in return for the granting of a such a statutory monopoly to any particular company, then a body should be set up to control that monopoly?
Dr. Mann: First, the Executive Council will always keep the option of alternative services if a service is failing and if another company is willing to operate such services or financially able to do so, and assuming that they use facilities that can be placed in the harbours, there is no reason at all why an alternative service could not operate
Passenger Carrying Ships in 1987 Tourist Season — Question by Mr. Delaney T2254 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 from the ports of the Isle of Man. The company is a public company and is responding to the demands made upon it. As far as the costs of travel, I understand that the costs of falling oil prices will certainly be reflected in the winter fares that will be announced at the same time as the new schedules are produced in the next few weeks. So I think there is a definite indication that the company is going to adjust its fare structure to the falling oil prices in the future. I think we do have to stop blaming the carriers for the failure of the tourist industry or the falling interest in tourism in the Isle of Man. There is no way in which the carriers — and I include the airlines in that phrase — can be directly blamed for a falling tourist industry. I would suggest that if you attend any exhibition in which the Isle of Man Tourist Board is represented outside the Island you will always see the carriers on the stand, you will always see the Isle of Man Tourist Board on the stand, you will hardly ever see a single representative of any tourist operator in the Isle of Man (Interruption) and that is constant, even when those tourist operators have been granted special concessionary rates which I have confirmed that at no time has any private operation ever presented themselves to the outside world. They are sitting here blaming the Tourist Board and blaming the carriers. It is neither; it is the tourist industry.
The Governor: Hon. members, (Interruption) I am speaking — please sit down! Hon. members, this is not a debate, it is a question as to what date we expect to be informed of the number of passenger carrying ships which will be in service in 1987. I must ask you, hon. members, to stick to the Standing Orders of this hon. Court. You may proceed with the questions if they are relevant. Mr. Payne followed by Mr. Delaney.
Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, could the hon. chairman answer my question?
Dr. Mann: I will answer the question from the hon. member which is a very interesting one. No harbour authority or port authority in my view ever has the right to insist on a statutory monopoly of sea carrying capacity, nor would I ever subscribe to there being a statutory monopoly. I think the limitations are obvious. We do not have many ports in which there is constant ability to land passengers and therefore there are limitations, but in no way do those limitations exclude a further operation if that is financially viable and nobody is going to produce that service until it is financially viable.
Mr. Delaney: In relation to the original question, Your Excellency, placed on the Question Paper, I asked the question in relation to fuel oils and I got an answer that the company will consider, as I understand it, reducing their fares for the winter when there are no tourists arriving. What was the answer given to the question in relation to the Irish punt where they have put down a 25 per cent. exchange rate on the original pricing and now it is down to less than 10 per cent.? What are we doing about that for the summer season and the Irish visitors we wish to bring to the Island?
Dr. Mann: This has been raised with the company and of course the punt rate goes up and down. Currently I believe it is going up rather than down.
Passenger Carrying Ships in 1987 Tourist Season — Question by Mr. Delaney TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2255
Mr. Delaney: It was down on the pound yesterday.
Dr. Mann: Well, I understand the exact opposite is occurring. In fact, if you look at the swings of the punt up and down it is entirely impracticable to operate a fare structure which takes into account changes in currencies.
ELECTRICITY CHARGES AND PROFITS — QUESTION BY MR. KARRAN
The Governor: Hon. members, we turn to question 2 on the Question Paper and I call upon the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Karran.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of Executive Council:
(I) Is the fall in world oil prices reflected in the fall in charges to the consumers of electricity on the Island?
(2) What surplus of profit. was earned in the past two years by the Manx Electricity Authority?
The Governor: The Chairman of the Executive Council, Dr. Mann.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, as the hon. members will recall, at the 21st May sitting of this hon. Court, in response to a question by the hon. Mr. Speaker I gave an assurance that I was satisfied that the continuing reduction on the cost of fuel was being reflected in charges made by the Manx Electricity Authority for electricity. I am still satisfied that this is the case, although of course you have to take into account the time lag between changes; but even so, that is quite responsive. As regards part (2) of the question I believe the hon. member's reference to surplus profits must relate to the general reserve and cost equalisation reserve accounts maintained by the Manx Electricity Authority. The authority is required to operate commercially and it is only prudent that any commercial enterprise maintain a general reserve fund. As regards the cost equalisation reserve, the authority is about to commence a major capital investment programme in its generation and distribution systems and its policy is to transfer the sum of £750,000 per annum into the reserving question as a contribution towards additional revenue costs arising from the investment programme. It should be noted that, even with the prudent provision being made, the sum so available would not be sufficient to meet the additional costs. The authority has a statutory duty to perform its functions so as to secure that its revenue is not less than sufficient to meet charges properly chargeable to revenue account taking one year with another and to enable the authority to make such allocations to reserves as it considers adequate or as the Treasury Board may direct. The Treasury Board has been fully consulted as regards the authority's policy and has agreed to it. I think it must be remembered that we as a Government have already committed a great deal of expenditure — £4.5 million — so as to put the authority in the position
Electricity Charges and Profits — Question by Mr. Karran T2256 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 to operate commercially without the burden of previously incurred borrowings. Failure of the authority to so operate can only lead to further situations developing where the authority would not be able to guarantee security of supply without Government assistance. In the final event the consumer has to pay one way or another and a gradual payment is more acceptable, I think, than any sudden dramatic sharp increases.
Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Your Excellency. After speaking to the Chairman of Executive Council yesterday, he is aware of part of the supplementary I wish to ask this morning dealing with the change in the rates and tariffs charged by the Isle of Man Electricity Authority. As I spoke to him yesterday and I asked the question this way, Your Excellency: whereas certain consumers in Douglas were given the benefit of a rate classed as 'Cl Seasonal Guest House Tariff' and this incorporates a large block of people and up to the last quarter they were charged a rate of 8.10p, They have now been re-classified to commercial use charging a rate of 5.10p. Will the chairman, under Section 22 of the Electricity Act 1984 which he moved and passed through the Keys, take the opportunity to cause enquiries to be made into why these changes have been made and this group of people are to be surcharged by being given a new rate higher than the original intention, particularly as another clause in the same Bill benefits Douglas ratepayers because of the amalgamation of two enterprises?
The Governor: You have no need to answer that question if you do not want to, because it is not directly related to the question on the order paper.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I will give the assurance that the hon. member wants — that enquiries will be made.
EMERGENCY SERVICES PERSONNEL — TAX EXEMPTIONS - QUESTION BY MR. BROWN
The Governor: We turn to question 3, hon. members. The hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Treasury:
Whereas - (a) sums in respect of income tax and national insurance are deducted from payment made to retained emergency services personnel while serving in such services; and (b) such service is part-time and of great value to the community.
Will your board consider classifying such payments as an expense allowance, thus exempting them from such deductions?
The Governor: The Chairman of the Treasury, Dr. Moore.
Emergency Services Personnel — Tax Exemptions — Question by Mr. Brown TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2257
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, the payments referred to by the hon. member are made to both full-time and part-time personnel who agree to undertake specified duties in return for payments being made. Whilst their service to the community is fully recognised for income tax and national insurance purposes the payments they receive are really no different to any other remuneration for services rendered and, as such, are properly charged to income tax and national insurance. It has always been considered inappropriate to treat the payments as expense allowances, thereby effectively exempting them from any liability to income tax and national insurance, and I personally see no reason to change that policy now.
Mr. Brown: Just a supplementary, Your Excellency. If that policy is adopted in the United Kingdom on this sort of emergency personnel, will the Treasury reconsider its views?
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, the Treasury would aim to keep under review any changes in events, although we have always, where possible, resisted blindly following United Kingdom procedures.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, a supplementary. Is the Chairman of the Treasury aware that for a session a special constable gets only £1.26 for a tour of duty, and would the Treasury not agree that if we are interested in getting value for money the likes of special constables, who do an excellent job, could be more used instead of policemen?
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, the allusion to which the hon. member for Middle refers is correct. I think we have about 90 retained firemen who get remuneration of about £136,000 a year in total. We have about 40 special constables who get a total remuneration of £3,000 in total a year and there would seem, as the hon. member suggests, to be a considerable discrepancy. I think you would expect the Treasury to say they would look for some adjustment but not necessarily to make constables the same as special firemen.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, a further supplementary. Would the Chairman of the Treasury not agree that this part-time and persons who are retained for emergency services in the likes of special constables do an excellent job and that it would actually save the taxpayers money in the long term if we gave the likes of special constables a reasonable remuneration?
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, I think Treasury will always be interested in any views the Home Affairs Board would like to make comparing their two emergency services.
RAMSEY QUAY — STRENGTHENING - QUESTION BY MR. CANNAN
The Governor: Question 4, hon. members.• The member for Michael, Mr. Cannan.
Ramsey Quay — Strengthening — Question by Mr. Cannan T2258 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg leave to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Harbour Board —
Bearing in mind the urgent requirement to promote industrial and commercial development in the north of the Island to ease the unemployment situation, will your board, as a matter of priority and using the saving on the capital expenditure for the reconstruction of the petroleum discharge berth in Douglas harbour, seek approval to use the surplus money to strengthen the Ramsey quay to take container cargo?
The Governor: The Chairman of the Isle of Man Harbour Board, Mr. Irving.
Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, my answer to the hon. member would be: all will be revealed when we reach item 48. (Laughter)
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING — SPECIALISED SKILLS - QUESTION BY MR. CAIN
The Governor: Question 5, hon. members. The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Cain.
Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I beg leave to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education —
Whereas - (a) a continuing and growing number of jobs are being created in the finance sector requiring either professional skills and qualifications or advanced keyboard and office skills utilising computers and word processors;
(b) there is a chronic shortage of Manx people with such skills, resulting in such jobs being filled by people recruited from off the Island; and
(c) the College of Further Education in particular and the schools in general are not providing adequate facilities for Manx young people to acquire the requisite professional qualifications and skills.
(1) What steps does your board intend to take to remedy this situation?
(2) What liaison, if any, is maintained with employers to ensure that Manx young people are both being trained for and being made aware of these new job opportunities in the finance sector?
The Governor: The Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education.
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, the board is very aware of the growing number of skills needed by the business sector on the Island. Many changes have
Employment Training — Specialised Skills — Question by Mr. Cain TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2259 taken place in recent years and the board is having to move quickly to try to keep up with the new demands of the business community. Our attempts to meet the needs of this community can be outlined under three headings: first, work done in schools. Since September 1985 there is at least one business studies teacher in every secondary school. In the Douglas area the number of business studies teachers has been doubled since the schools re-organised; there had previously been three at the Douglas High School and none at Ballakermeen. Now each of the two Douglas secondary schools has three teachers. Qualified business studies teachers are in short supply and difficult to come by, being in great demand elsewhere as well as in the Isle of Man. To try to fill this shortfall the board has adopted a policy of training people with business studies skills as qualified teachers. Two such people are due to commence their training in September. At all secondary schools pupils have experience of learning keyboard skills and skills associated with new technology such as the word processor. They do so in most schools by using the computer but at St. Ninian's, through the school's own efforts, a word processor has been obtained. It has not yet been possible for the board to supply each school with a word processor since resources are limited. For example, there are still a lot of manual typewriters in secondary schools. More money will be included in the board's 1987/1988 estimates to enable these initiatives to continue. At both Ballakermeen and St. Ninian's, '0' level and C.S.E. business studies, typing and office practice courses are available and the Queen Elizabeth II High School in Peel is shortly to start office practice and typing courses. At Ramsey Grammar School the R. S. A. typing course is available with '0' level typing and business studies. In addition, all primary schools are now using computers and some are obtaining word processing chips in their computers and printers. Eventually it can be confidently anticipated, therefore, that pupils will leave school much more adept at dealing with the new technological world. The College of Further Education — in response to recent demands for secretaries with higher levels of skills, the two-year London Chamber of Commerce Private Secretary's Course was introduced in September last year, which is combined with the study of two G.C.E. 'A' level subjects. This intensive two-year course of study affords students an excellent preparation for the taking up of secretarial positions. At a more basic level the department will introduce the R.S.A. diploma in office studies coupled with the study of Business Studies '0' level subjects to September 1986. This is a one-year course which will provide an excellent all-round introduction to business studies for young people who do not wish or are not able to undertake some of the department's more specific secretarial courses. In September 1984 the College was successful in obtaining approval from the Business and Technicians Education Council to offer a Higher National Certificate course in public administration. The planning of this course was done in conjunction with the Civil Service and other public sector bodies. It is hoped that this initiative will lead to the introduction of a full-time Higher National Diploma in Business Studies in 1988/1989, but this will depend upon the completion of Phase 1 of the college building programme, half of which is given over to accommodating the business and management studies department. This is an exciting prospect and will enhance the opportunities for study in this field on the Island and should certainly allow for extended co-operation with the business world — for example, with British Telecom.
Employment Training — Specialised Skills — Question by Mr. Cain T2260 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
For some time now there has been a shortage of places in establishments of higher education for young people wishing to undertake studies in accountancy and related subjects. Mindful of this, the Business and Management studies staff are planning the introduction of the preliminary certificate of the Institute of Certified Accountants, which is a specialist one-year course calling for two 'A' levels or a 'B' Technical National Diploma qualification for entry purposes. This course will be introduced in September 1986. Hon. members will see, therefore, that much has been done in the last two years at the College and that more still is planned for the future. This is, of course, in addition to the normal secretarial courses that the College has been running for many years. Support for students wishing to study off the Island. Business studies in its numerous forms is one of the most popular subjects with students entering higher education. Currently there are 40 students on business studies courses off the Island. It can be seen that a large number of young Manx people are being trained in this area of work. Many of them return to the Island to work but this is not automatic. It is hoped, however, that more will return home on the completion of their courses in the future as they see the increasing opportunities that are now available on the Island. Now the final part: what liaison, if any, is maintained with employers? Hon. members will probably be aware that there is in existence a Business Advisory Council, which is a body established at the College of Further Education where representatives of the business community can meet with representatives of the board in college. This meets on a regular basis and is a good source of information concerning the business needs of the Island in terms of training. In addition to regular meetings of this body other initiatives have also been taking place. The college has sent out letters and questionnaires to approximately 180 employers on the Island. The letters had included information on the new courses to be offered this September whilst the questionnaire had invited employees to specify their training needs and requirements. The response has been disappointing in that, thus far, only 20 replies have been received. The College has also held a business studies seminar in January this year dealing with the department's development plans. This was attended by 21 people. On my own initiative the Employment Sub-Committee of Executive Council have been meeting employers from various industries in an effort to find out what the employer really wants so that we can co-ordinate efforts to train the young people to meet the job opportunities which exist on the Island.
SANTON SCHOOL CLOSURE — CHANGE OF POLICY - QUESTION BY MR. DELANEY
The Governor: Question number 6, hon. members. The hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg leave to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education —
Whereas it has been announced recently that your Finance and Executive
Santon School Closure — Change of Policy — Question by Mr. Delaney TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2261
Committee has reversed its decision to close Santon School. Will you give details of all the new information which came to light that resulted in this change of policy?
▪ The Governor: The Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education, Mr. Kneale.
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, it is wrong to say that the Finance and • Executive Committee has reversed its decision to close Santon School as they had not previously considered the matter as a committee. The original recommendation to close Santon School came from the Primary Education Committee and was considered by the Board of Education on 6th March when, by a majority of 16 to nine, the board agreed to the procedure for closure to be put into operation whereby public notice was given and three months allowed for any ten or more registered voters to submit objections to the proposals. At that meeting of the board two Tynwald members were absent and, of the three Tynwald members who were present, one voted against the recommendation of the Primary Education Committee and two — namely myself and the Lord Bishop — supported it. Only one of the members of the Finance and Executive Committee who were present at the meeting of the board on 6th March changed his vote when the objections were considered by that committee. That was on 26th June, but as the committee was evenly divided on the issue that was sufficient to stop the closure. As to the new information which came before the committee to bring about this change in voting there was none; in fact the case had weakened, for in April this year the number of pupils attending this school was two less than expected, with only 11 juniors and seven infants. As some parents had decided to make alternative arrangements for their children's education we were informed that only 13 children were registered for September this year. We have to remember that this is a school which caters for children from four to 11 years of age and we employ two teachers to look after their educational needs, which is extravagant in the extreme. Four letters of objection were received as a result of the public notice: one from the Braddan Commissioners expressing regret and disapproval of the proposal to close, but how it affects them I do not know; one from the mother of a child who lives at Port Grenaugh; one from the vicar and four wardens of Santon Church in which they make reference to the 1923 Educational Endowments Act and the way it affects them if the Board of Education ceases to use the school premises. The final paragraph of their letter reads as follows 'We, the undersigned, wish to • object to your proposal of closure and would be obliged if you would inform us of your future proposals for the sale and dividing of the proceeds of sale between both parties should you carry out your proposals.' In fact, what are we getting out of it? The fourth letter was signed by 30 registered voters, three of whom were churchwardens who had already signed the letter from Santon Church. Of these 30 signatures only four of them are parents who have children at Santon School at present and two others have babies who will be of school age in September 1988 and September 1989 respectively. It is quite obvious that parents have accepted the position that the school would close and this decision of the Finance and Executive Committee of the Board of Education is not, in my opinion, in the best interests of the children who attend this school, for the uncertainty which has existed for
Santon School Closure — Change of Policy — Question by Mr. Delaney T2262 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 the last two years will continue for both parents and teachers. It is quite clear from the knowledge that we have of children in the area that the numbers in this school are not going to increase and it is inevitable that a further recommendation for closure will not be long in coming forward. In fact, I have received a letter over the weekend notifying me that at its meeting on 9th July the 7 Primary Education Committee had noted that the Finance and Executive Committee had agreed that the above school should remain open but, having regard to the educational difficulties which would be experienced by the pupils remaining at the school in September 1986, resolved unanimously to recommend that the Board of Education should cease to maintain Santon School with effect from 31st December 1986. When the previous closure recommendation came forward in March this year only seven members of the Primary Education Committee supported it. Now all 11 members of that committee are in favour of closure. I believe this is a correct decision and it will come before the full board at its meeting at the end of this month. I only regret, sir, that it is necessary for the whole procedure of public notice to be gone through again.
Mr. Delaney: I thank the chairman for a comprehensive reply and the information given to this hon. Court. May I ask one question? Now that we have spent, as in his own reply, some two years, will he or will he not — and regardless of the merits of closing or keeping that school open — to get a practical Government position, certainly on the financing of education, take some steps to ensure that when he makes policies or whoever his successor is makes policies — having discussed it with all these different bodies, the Government itself can carry out the policy objectives of his department?
Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, could I ask the hon. chairman, would it be correct to surmise that, in order to find the finance to keep Santon School open, Andreas school is to be deprived of one member of its teaching staff? And could I further ask the chairman to agree that if this is the case there is still further discrimination against country schools to use this method in this particular instance to keep Santon open?
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, would the chairman not agree that the Primary C Committee was given an ultimatum? Was it not from the Finance and Executive Committee that either they proposed to close the country schools or they would have staffing cuts in other primary schools and that the real proposal really came from the Finance and Executive by starving the Primary Committee? Would he not also agree that the situation which has undermined the confidence in the local community in Santon is that at the beginning of the September term there is now 1* going to be 15 pupils instead of there was to be 22, and does he not feel that, if he left that school open as an infants' school with one teacher from four to eight and also gave a bit of commitment to that school, the numbers would actually go up because many of the local members of the community are sending their children to other schools?
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, if I could answer Mr. Karran first, there
Santon School Closure — Change of Policy — Question by Mr. Delaney TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2263
was no ultimatum given to the Primary Education Committee. It should have been obvious to everybody, if you are going to make a saving in one direction and you cannot make that saving in one direction and your cash is limited you have got to find the money from somewhere else. • As regards the question of keeping it open as an infants' school with one teacher, to have one teacher looking after children in the age range between four and eleven is a nonsense and is depriving the children of the education they are entitled to. As regards Andreas School, it is quite wrong, despite this rumour that is spreading, • that we are taking a teacher away from Andreas because the Finance and Executive have refused to back the closure of Santon. Andreas School numbers are decreasing and if they lose a teacher it will be because of the drop in their own numbers. It is nothing at all to do with the Santon effort at all. As regards the hon. member, Mr. Delaney, we are tied at the moment to the 1949 Educational Act as amended by the 1968 Educational Act. Although the procedure may appear to be a nonsense and I agree it is a nonsense, it is the only procedure that we have to operate on at the moment.
Mr. Delaney: Change it.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, could I ask, if more money was made available to the board to keep these schools open would they keep them open?
Mrs. Christian: A supplementary question, Your Excellency. What is the role of the Primary Committee of the Board of Education in determining the staffing levels of the primary schools? Do they have a role at all or is this determined by the officers of the board?
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, my chairman has indicated that there may be a change in the decision of Santon School again and he did say that this is a mockery. Is it not now time to look at this situation and reconsider the appeals position? And does he not feel that it is totally wrong for the board to make a decision, the procedure to be followed as it was before and come back to the same appeals committee?
Mr. Karran: Your Eiccellency, a supplementary. Would the chairman firstly tell us, when I asked the question to do with the Primary Committee, can he once again 4ssure us that it has not been through the fact of the Finance and Executive Committee putting pressure on the Primary Committee because I believe that that was the case when I was a member of the Board of Education — we were given 'an ultimatum? Can he also not tell this hon. Court, is it not true that his persistent policy of attacking small schools has undermined the local community at Santon and that, due to that, the figures are artificially low because of the way that this axe has been over Santon School's head for the last two or three years?
Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, replying to Mr. Karran first, the answer is 'no', we have already told him that the children are not in the area and we have even included in our calculations some children that have not even been born yet; we know that they are on the way and hopefully will arrive. This question of figures
Santon School Closure — Change of Policy — Question by Mr. Delaney 12264 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 that people keep bandying around — I would also point out that as far as the pupils attending Santon at the moment, three of them are going out from Douglas, so if you took them off there are very, very few people in this area, and when you consider the age gap of four to 11 and they can only raise 18 with three from Douglas, it does not give much indication of a wide spectrum of education facilities that can be offered. In fact, the small schools are closing themselves because the numbers are just not justifying educationally, never mind about financially — finance is a secondary consideration; educationally this is wrong. Mrs. Christian, the hon. member for Ayre, asked about the number of pupils per teacher, was it?
Mrs. Christian: My question, Your Excellency, was, what is the role of the Primary Committee in establishing what the staffing levels will be in the primary school? Do they have any function at all or are the staffing levels determined by the officers of your board? Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: The numbers of staff will be decided by the Primary Committee on the information that is supplied to them by the officers. Naturally enough, in smaller schools there has got to be a much lower pupil/staff ratio than in the bigger schools. We try not to go above 25 pupils to a teacher in the primary schools but in some of our larger schools we are over 30 in a large number of the classes. The decision is made on that formula basically, but the overall size of the school has a significant part to play in the decision being made.
Mrs. Christian: A supplementary question, Your Excellency. In that case, how is it possible that the Primary Committee were not aware of the changes which occurred at Andreas School and the fact that one teacher was not to be replaced?
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Well, as we are not dealing with Andreas School, sir, if anybody wishes to put a question down on Andreas School specifically I will reply to that but I am answering, sir, questions dealing with Santon School and I will supply the information to the hon. member separately.
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, the hon. chairman has not answered my question, but would he not agree that no educational argument has been put forward yet which has convinced anybody that both these schools should be closed?
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: There are plenty of educational arguments put forward and Mr. Quirk knows it full well because he has heard them over and over again. The number of children attending a school will decide the extent of the curriculum you can offer, and in a small school children are being deprived and, especially when you get an uneven break of ages, some children are virtually isolated in their own age group. Mr. Quirk knows the answers; he has heard them over and over again.
PATRICK SCHOOL CLOSURE — QUESTION BY MR. ANDERSON
The Governor: Hon. members, I think we should move on to question 7 and
Patrick School Closure — Question by Mr. Anderson TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2265
I call upon the hon. member of Council, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I beg leave to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education —
(I) What were the principal factors, educational and financial, which persuaded your board to close Patrick School?
(2) How does your board justify its discrimination in retaining Santon School?
(3) If the closure does proceed, what are your board's intentions for the historic school building?
The Governor: The Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education, for the third time of asking!
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, the main reason for closing Patrick School is educational, for when the numbers attending get down as low as seven then the children are being deprived of many of the activities that are normal practice in larger schools. True, this school has an excellent head teacher in Miss Fryer and she makes up for many of the deficiencies of such a small school, but even she cannot be expert at everything. It is also wrong that a teacher of Miss Fryer's ability should be restricted to teaching such a small number of children when her talents can be used with much greater impact in a larger school. Inevitably, running a school for such small numbers has an effect on the finances, and the cost per pupil for teaching the seven children who would have been at Patrick in September would be well over £3,000 per pupil compared with the average Island cost of £575. As regards the second part of the question, there is no possible way that the Board of Education can justify the discrimination in retaining Santon School. There can be no doubt at all that both educationally and financially the correct decision was made as regards Patrick School, but I am still mystified as to how the majority of the Finance and Executive Committee arrived at the decision to keep Santon School open with the evidence that was put before them. I have already explained the matter in some detail when replying to the question asked by the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney, and I am sure there is no need for me to repeat it all again. As regards the third part of the question, the board has not made a decision as to the future use of Patrick School buildings as yet. Before any such decision is made the board will have to consider whether any other educational use can be made of it.
Mr. Anderson: I thank the hon. chairman for his reply, but I am not too happy about it.
Mr. Gilbey: Two supplementaries, Your Excellency. Is it not true that St. John's School is so full that it can only take children from its official catchment area and any from outside who want to go there cannot, and therefore would not this pressure
Santon School Closure — Change of Policy — Question by Mr. Delaney T2266 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 be relieved by keeping open Patrick School? Secondly, is the chairman aware that due to new families with young children moving into the Patrick area, the potential of Patrick School membership from this autumn shows a considerable increase to 13, and therefore the figures of seven which the chairman keeps quoting are false? Would he not also admit that his own board's figures show a future level of 13 next year or the year after regardless of these new families moving in?
Mr. Karran: Would the chairman not agree that the proposed figures for this September were 22 and, because of the repeated axe being put over the head of Santon School, it is now down to 15 and there were even going to be more than 22 there? Would the chairman not agree that is the reason why the Finance and Executive Comittee discriminated in retaining Santon School? Also, seeing that it is a fait accompli, will the chairman now tell us what he intends to do with Santon School when it is closed?
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: The answer to Mr. Gilbey: as regards St. John's School, St. John's School is not full. St. John's School is like so many other schools - what we call a 'closed school' because we do not allow people from other areas to move in there in case it would increase the number of teachers you would have to employ to deal with the area. There will be people who were at Patrick School who will come within a certain distance of St. John's School, and there will be room found for them in this school. The new families moving into the Patrick area — well, every family that we have any indication of that have moved in, whether they have got newborn babies or not, we have taken into consideration in arriving at our figures, and the figures we have had — and nobody has been able to produce any other figures except these — that there will be seven in September, there will be seven next year and there will be eight or possibly nine the year after. Those are the figures that are available to us for the next three years.
SECONDARY SCHOOL STAFF APPOINTMENTS - QUESTION BY DR. MOORE
The Governor: Hon. members, we move on to question 8. I call on the hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore.
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, I beg leave to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education —
Will you consider changing the procedure for the appointment of teaching staff at secondary schools so that headmasters and department heads have the major say in selection?
The Governor: The Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education.
Secondary School Staff Appointments — Question by Dr. Moore TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2267
Mr. Kneale: Just let me look for question 8 . . .
Mr. Delaney: It is under 'closure!
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Of course, Your Excellency, with the new constitution of the Board of Education which comes into being in 1987, the position will have to be reviewed and this matter is at present under consideration. The present arrangements allow for both the headmaster and the departmental head in our secondary schools to be involved at the short-listing and pre-interview stage for all appointments. Candidates are given the opportunity of visiting the schools and discussing the post for which they are applying with the head of department. At the appointment interview the head teacher is always present, he is always given the opportunity of questioning the candidates and is always invited to give his opinion and to indicate his preference. The head teacher also knows the opinion of his head of department prior to coming to the interview. The head teacher, even although he does not have a vote, has considerable influence on the final appointments.
COUNCIL HOUSE REFURBISHMENT - RENT INCREASES — QUESTION BY MR. DELANEY
The Governor: Question 9, hon. members. The member of East Douglas, Mr. Delaney.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg leave to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board —
What increases have been applied and are to be applied in the rents charged to tenants of Douglas Corporation council houses which have already been refurbished or which are scheduled to be refurbished in James Street, King Street, Lord Street, and Hillside Avenue?
The Governor: The chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, in 1983 the Local Government Board, following consultation with the Housing Advisory Committee, agreed to the introduction of a revised points structure for local authority dwellings based on the floor area. One of the objects of this was to remove the considerable differences that existed between public authority housing rents in different parts of the Island. It was, in the board's view, quite indefensible that a tenant in one area should be paying a much higher rent than a tenant in another area where the accommodation was similar. The revised structure has been phased over four years and has resulted in some rents rising only slightly, in some cases remaining unchanged and in some cases the rents have risen markedly. A four-year period was determined to ease the burden of the increases on those who would face the more rapid increases. We are now in the fourth year of the exercise and have achieved a greater equality and fairness in our public
Council House Refurbishment — Rent Increases — Question by Mr. Delaney T2268 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 authority rents than ever before. It must be said, though, that in general Douglas Corporation rents were, at the beginning of the exercise, below the average for the Island as a whole and some of the rents have had to be increased by relatively large amounts in order to catch up. In the case of the Corporation's town centre flats a special arrangement was agreed. As refurbishment of the flats was imminent the Douglas Corporation specifically reqUested that these properties be excluded from the four-year phasing in of the re-pointing exercise on the understanding that as and when the flats were refurbished they would be re-pointed in accordance with the revised structure. This, of course, has had the effect that those which have been refurbished in the fourth year of the re-pointing exercise have had the whole increase attributable to the exercise applied all in one fell swoop. The increases vary and, whilst they are in some cases modest, in others they are considerable. However, I would say that this was the way the Corporation chose to implement the arrangement and it has a certain logic in that the increase in rent coincides with the improvement in the property. If you look at the specific streets, in James Street and King Street, to compare the rents for a typical flat which is not yet refurbished with one that has been modernised, the rent increases from £8.30 a week to £9.86. In Lord Street we found that in 1985/86 the effects of the increase were in, one-bedroom flats, £8.23 a week to £9.08 and, in three-bedroom flats, £9.27 to £11.56. Two-bedroom flats in Coronation Terrace increased from £10.82 to £11.84 and the very large four-bedroom flats increased from £11.96 a week to £18.60. The Hillside estate has not yet been refurbished and the Hillside Avenue houses have been subject to the re-pointing exercise. Rent increases have therefore been phased over the four-year period and the only increase that will apply following refurbishment is the addition in respect of the installation of central heating, and this will amount to an increase of something between 50p and £1 a dwelling.- On the present rent of £15.78 it represents about five per cent. Your Excellency, I think that is the answer the hon. member wished.
Mr. Delaney: I thank the chairman for his comprehensive reply. Would the chairman agree with me that the rents increases that have been quoted, particularly for the James/King Street flats — they have now been changed from two-bedroom flats into one-bedroom, so the increases in actual fact reflect not a like-for-like situation at all? Is the chairman aware of what seems to be the breakdown completely in the Douglas Corporation housing allocation whereby they are having, for the Hillside Avenue, to place houses in reserve to transfer the people to and this action is holding up the movement of people who are genuinely waiting on the housing list for movement into council houses? The general statement being made by the Douglas Corporation is that because of the need to move these people no houses will be available for the foreseeable . . . certainly the next two or three years. Will the chairman take note of what 1 have said and take action to assist what seems to be a lack of planning of the Douglas Corporation in the refurbishment of these properties?
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I can confirm what the hon. member for East Douglas has stated — that in James Street the flats have been reduced from two bedrooms down to one bedroom, although obviously the floor area within the flat
Council House Refurbishment — Rent Increases — Question by Mr. Delaney TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2269
is the same as it was before apart from the removal, perhaps, of partition walls. As far as the housing management problems experienced by the Corporation in regard to Hillside Avenue are concerned, as I understand it they need perhaps 14 dwellings to be used as 'transit houses' for the want of a better word. They have • got over 2,000 houses in their housing stock and I would not have thought it was an impossible situation for them to find 14 houses. I think we have to accept that there are some people who will not be allocated a permanent residence while those houses remain in use as transit houses. • The Local Government Board has had exactly the same problem and we have had to say to people on our housing list, 'I am sorry, we have got to reserve these houses' — not a popular political thing to do, but it is something in housing management that has to happen. We did say to the Corporation, the Local Government Board, on at least one occasion 'Why not acquire some town centre properties which require modernisation, use those and put them into housing stock?' The Corporation consistently came back and said, no, they did not think the properties were suitable. They have now turned round and said, 'Please can we buy some houses to put in our housing stock?' and of course at this stage we have not allowed anything in our estimates at all and we have invited the Corporation to give further consideration to this and come to the Local Government Board in the due time.
Mr. Delaney: A further supplementary, Your Excellency. In thanking the chairman for his replies and also in agreeing with him they have taken most actions as possible, the Local Government Board, will he take an interest in those people who have to move because of the refurbishment but who do not seem to be getting satisfaction from the Corporation in regard to the place they are expected to move to?
Mr. May: A supplementary, Your Excellency. Would the hon. chairman not agree with me that the figure required for transit properties is not 14 but in reality actually 32, the breakdown of those properties being 14 required for the refurbishment of the Hillside estate, another additional eight required for the refurbishment which his board have given approval to of the upper Pulrose estate? There are additional properties already required in the King Street and James Street area, bringing the total requirement to a total of 32. Would the hon. chairman not also agree with me, sir, that where he says his board recommended the Corporation to buy in-town properties for refurbishment, the properties suggested were large properties which were totally unsuitable for this purpose, properties which would have effected social problems by sticking families one on top of the other in flat situations totally unsuited for this requirement?
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, the transit houses I referred to were those that were necessary for the refurbishment of the Hillside Avenue houses. There are others required if the Corporation are going to carry out a policy of refurbishing, which I hope they will, and if they carry out the policy of moving their tenants out when massive refurbishment works have to take place. I believe it is unfair to leave these families in situ. We have had experience of that. The tenants do not always want to move but, nevertheless, I believe that we have to take a stance on this and we have to say it is in their interests to move and in the interests of the Corporation.
Council House Refurbishment — Rent Increases — Question by Mr. Delaney T2270 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Again it is not always a politically popular thing to do but it is something that has to be done. The housing management problems are those of Douglas Corporation. Of course we will keep an interest, obviously, but the management problems are those of the Corporation and many of these questions I say should be addressed to the sr Corporation itself. As far as the houses that were suggested to the Corporation for acquisition refurbishment and perhaps putting into the housing stock, we did start with giving them a list of houses with closing orders on, because those are the ones that I believe the public authority ought to be taking some interest in, not ignoring and then complaining about them. They should be taking an interest in those houses. Some of them would not be suitable for the purpose which they are looking at the moment, but that was a starting position. We were not saying to the Corporation `You must take these houses and none other.' What we said: 'Here is a list of houses EID that have a problem, look at these.' If they had come back with other proposals we would have looked at that. They did not do that; they said, 'We do not believe that this is the right proposal'. In fact, they said, 'We want to build new houses at Pulrose at a cost', if my memory serves me right, 'of something like £40,000 or more each and we said that that just was not on.
Mr. Cretney: A supplementary, Your Excellency. The hon. chairman has identified that the Corporation has now made moves to contact the Local Government Board in connection with perhaps purchasing properties about the town that could be used as transit accommodation. Would he be prepared, if an agreement can be reached, to consult with the Treasury Board to see if it would be possible to have a supplementary vote voted to do something about this problem? It is not going to go away; it is no good leaving it until next year, sir.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, if the Corporation come forward with a proposal, of course we will look at it. I must say, though, that I think financial discipline is one of the most important things that this hon. Court has to pay attention to and I do not believe that supplementary votes, because somebody has made a mistake, is a correct way to go about the matter. However, if they come forward with a specific answer to the problem that they believe they have, then obviously AN it will be looked at.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, could the hon. chairman give me some advice for a constitutent of mine who is living in a two-roomed cottage with a galvanised lean-to kitchen which has an outside loo and no hot water in it? Can he give some guidance to that constitutent of mine, because Douglas Corporation will not re-let that person until September or October?
The Governor: Hon. members, we are beginning to stretch our own Standing Orders. (Members: Hear, hear.) However, I do not attempt to write down the importance of your question, but it is not strictly related to question 9.
Council House Refurbishment — Rent Increases — Question by Mr. Delaney TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2271
LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSES - NUMBERS BUILT AND WAITING LISTS - QUESTION BY MR. KARRAN
The Governor: Let us move on to your question. The hon. member for Middle, Mr. Karran, question 10.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board:
(1) What is the total number of local authority houses built during the last three years? (2) How many people are now on waiting lists and how many were on those lists three years ago?
The Governor: Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, the total of new public authority dwellings provided in the last three years is 33, and whilst there is no construction plan in the current year, design work is in hand for a new 40 unit sheltered complex in Ramsey to begin in 1987, and land has been purchased and sketch designs approved by the Management Committee of the Marashen Crescent complex. As regards waiting lists, at 31st December 1985 the total on public authority waiting lists was 1,033 and that is exactly the same number as at 31st December 1982 coincidentally. If we compare 1981 with 1985 we find that the waiting list for normal public authority housing has actually fallen by about 200 families from 933 to 739. In that same period there has been an increase of about 80 in those waiting for sheltered accommodation and it is additional sheltered housing that we would hope to provide in the next financial year.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, a supplementary. Can he first give me a breakdown on where these 33 houses have been built over the last three years and in which years did they take place? Allowing for the fact of the 32 houses that have had to be taken out of Douglas Corporation, is there any other local authority who are having to lose accommodation at the present time because of the re-grading or have any local authorities actually had to get rid of any local authority houses? Can the hon. chairman also tell me, has there been pressure put on the environmental department not to issue closing orders on premises for private accommodation because of the problem of the lack of public accommodation, and what is the board's view on its policy as far as the lack of growth in the public sector as far as local authority housing and what effect does he feel is being done on the private rents and on standards of that accommodation?
Mr. Brown: Do you understand that?
Mr. Cringle: Just stand up and say `yes'!
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, a string of supplementaries all of which I do not
Local Authority Houses — Numbers Built and Waiting Lists - Question by Mr. Karran T2272 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 think I got a grasp of, but certainly to start with the 33 houses that have been completed, there were ten by the Local Government Board at Janet's Corner in Castletown, there was an increase in the number of sheltered units at Marashen Crescent of 22, and in Peel we had one conversion of what used to be a telephone exchange into a publicly owned dwelling. That is the 33 increase and I might add • that that information is all in the Local Government Board reports of the last two or three years, Your Excellency. Braddan Commissioners have made a case to the Local Government Board about local authority houses and I do believe that that is one local authority area that has got a problem. They lost a number of housing units to Douglas Corporation in the take-over and they have got certainly a problem with their houses down at Tromode and I do believe that we have sincerely look at the case they are making at the moment. Ramsey Commissioners have had to make available other dwellings to act as transit dwellings so they have had a similar problem to the Corporation. We certainly — and I would make it absolutely clear — have not being putting pressure on any of our technical officers not to issue closing orders. I believe that that would be a very wrong thing to do and if the hon. member is suggesting that is what we should be doing I hope that that is not the case. They have a professional duty to do and I am sure that they are doing just that.
RADIOACTIVITY SCANNER FOR LIVE ANIMALS - QUESTION BY MRS. HANSON
The Governor: Question number 11, hon. members. The hon. member for Council, Mrs. Hanson.
Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:
Whereas wide media coverage has been given to the fact that the United Kingdom Ministry of Agriculture has developed a scanner that will give immediate radioactivity read-outs on live animals instead of slaughter and laboratory testing of tissue. This equipment is easily portable and compact. Is your board giving serious consideration to this new development for use in the Isle of Man?
The Governor: Mr. Radcliffe, the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, this portable scanning device was first reported in the media in early July. I have a little clipping from the Daily Telegraph of 2nd July where it sets out an article saying that this scanner has been developed. Enquiries have revealed that two such prototype pieces of equipment are presently being used; one is being developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the other by the National Radiological Protection Board. However, this equipment is
Radioactivity Scanner for Live Animals — Question by Mrs. Hanson TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2273 still under development and not readily commercially available as a unit. The equipment is composed of sodium iodine detectors which measure the emission of gamma rays in the material, which is the live animal in this instance, so as to give an indication of the level of radioactivity, but the machine does not identify the individual isotope such as caesium 137 and 134, which are the ones currently giving us problems on the Island. The scanning device has a 30 to 40 per cent. margin of error and is therefore used only to give a general guide. The preliminary readings from this scanner are then followed up by the testing of samples in laboratory conditions by the accepted and proven criteria of counting the rate of radioactive emissions from a minimum quantity of 500 grammes of material over a minimum period of 1,200 seconds — and why my ahswer does not say 20 minutes I do not know, sir. It is understood that the Local Government Board is undertaking a study of monitoring arrangements and equipment currently on the Island and it is not thought that the Local Government Board would wish to pre-empt the outcome of that study by the purchase of such an expensive piece of equipment. As I say, there are only two and it is thought that they would cost somewhere in the region of £30,000 and that is if it was commercially available.
Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, may I ask a supplementary? The hon. chairman did not reply to the last part of my question — is your board giving serious consideration to this new development? I have been in telephone communication with British Nuclear Fuels over this and also with the Ministry of Agriculture in London. Would you give consideration to it, because more animals could be tested than the random samples that are now being done which have to be slaughtered and tests sent away for examination?
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I would like to ask the chairman, when continuing to give consideration to radioactive read-outs on live animals and also carrying out tests on dead animals for radioactivity, will the board officially inform this Court and the agricultural industry as to their proposals to compensate farmers who have had their livelihood seriously affected by the radioactive fall-out persisting in the Island over a period of time and do not presently have any idea of what compensation proposals are likely to be? Would the chairman bring such proposals to this Court in the course of this sitting, because if he does not do so there is obviously no provision for compensation prior to the winter period?
The Governor: I hesitate before such a master of the hon. Court to point out that that does go beyond the limits of the question, Mr. Speaker! However, Mr. Radcliffe.
Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, dealing with the hon. member of Council's question and the serious consideration, I would point out that the exercise which has been undertaken in conjunction with the Local Government Board is not solely a Board of Agriculture exercise. We certainly will and we are meeting with the Local Government Board tomorrow before this hon. Court sits and we will certainly look at it, but I would point out it is not solely a Board of Agriculture exercise, it is in conjunction with the Local Government Board. If anyone was to purchase it
Radioactivity Scanner for Live Animals — Question by Mrs. Hanson T2274 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
I think the Local Government Board, who have handled the whole affair so far, would be the ones who would be the purchasers. In regard to Mr. Speaker's supplementary, Your Excellency, it has been made clear that the Board of Agriculture do intend to see that the variable premium is paid on these lambs. We have not talked about compensation as such yet because we feel that initially by almost — certainly, yes — guaranteeing the variable premium which is a fair proportion of the price of a lamb we have honoured our debt to the industry and acknowledged the inconvenience and possible loss that the industry may suffer. We will at the end of the exercise — and I hope it will not be too far off — then be looking at it in total and if there are good reasons for doing that, then we shall come forward to this hon. Court, sir.
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS - MONEY PAID OUT IN RAMSEY AND THE NORTH - QUESTION BY MR. BELL
The Governor: Question 12, hon. members. The member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Department of Health and Social Security:
What is the total sum paid out in unemployment benefits in Ramsey and the North (i.e. through your department's Ramsey office) for the financial year 1985/86?
The Governor: The Chairman of the Department of Health and Social Security, Mr. Callin.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, to answer the question, benefits paid through the Ramsey office to the unemployed — that is, to persons required to be registered as unemployed and available for work — amounted to £699,328.43 in the year 1985/86, and that comprised £247,175.65 Unemployment Benefit paid out to the National Insurance Fund and £452,152.78 Supplementary Benefit paid out of the general revenue.
Mr. Bell: I thank the chairman for his reply, sir.
Mr. May: A supplementary, Your Excellency. Could the hon. chairman give us the comparable figures paid out at the Douglas office? (Laughter)
The Governor: Answer please, Mr. Catlin.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, it might then be helpful if I was to give a little bit more information. I can say that unemployment benefits paid through the Ramsey office in 1985/86 represent about 20 per cent. of the all-Island total for the year, which was £699,000 out of £3,410,000. At the end of 1986 the total number of
Unemployment Benefits — Money Paid Out in Ramsey and the North - Question by Mr. Bell TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2275 persons registered as unemployed in Ramsey and the north was 322, or 19 per cent. less than the 411 so registered at the corresponding date in 1985 and four per cent. less than at the end of 1984. At the end of June this year and the last two years the numbers registered as unemployed in Ramsey and the North represented the following percentages of the all-Island figures: 1986 was 18.1 per cent., 1985 was 21.2 per cent., and 1984 was 19.9 per cent.
Mr. May: Your Excellency, with respect, sir, the question I asked was, could the hon. chairman give us the comparable figures paid out at the Douglas office?
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I would have to have notice of that actual figure because I do not have it with me.
The Governor: Was the second part of your answer the answer to question 13 or a supplementary on question 12?
Mr. Catlin: I have answered the question as I understand.
The Governor: Twelve and 13?
Mr. Catlin: No, not 13, sir.
INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE — CHANGES - QUESTION BY MR. CRETNEY
The Governor: I call upon Mr. Cretney to ask question 13.
Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Department of Health and Social Security:
Does your department intend to follow the recent changes made in the United Kingdom concerning the payment of invalid care allowance to married women?
The Governor: I call upon Mr. Callin.
Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, firstly I have to correct the hon. member in the wording of his question: there have been no recent changes made in the United Kingdom concerning the payment of invalid care allowance to married women. On Monday 23rd June the Secretary of State for Social Services announced to the House of Commons the United Kingdom's intention to extend legibility to invalid care allowance to married women on the same terms as married men and single women. Accordingly the United Kingdom Government is to introduce an amendment to the Social Security Bill which is presently before Parliament to achieve this change. Should the amendment be successful it is likely to be implemented in the autumn, although no specific date has yet been announced. The United Kingdom Government
Invalid Care Allowance — Changes — Question by Mr. Cretney T2276 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 is also considering the question of giving the amendment some retrospective effect, but again no firm details have yet emerged. I am pleased to confirm that, at its meeting on 9th July, the department's Social Security Committee gave careful consideration to the United Kingdom announcement and agreed that as and when the changes are agreed in the United Kingdom appropriate steps should be taken with a view to adopting similar provisions in the Island. I want to add that the committee's positive response to the United Kingdom announcement is quite unrelated to the hon. member's question as we were unaware that any such question was being tabled at that time the decision was taken. I feel I should make this point quite clear in view of the publicity given to the question in last week's local press.
BROADCASTING — TELEVISION - SATELLITE TRANSMISSIONS — QUESTION BY MRS. HANSON
The Governor: On we go to the last question for oral answer, question 14. Mrs. Hanson, the hon. member for Council.
Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I beg to ask the Chairman of the Isle of Man Post Office Authority:
(I) How many satellite dishes for viewing satellite transmitted television programmes are in use in the Island? (2) Is there an additional increased licence fee for the operation of this form of T. V. reception?
The Governor: The Chairman of the Isle of Man Post Office Authority, Mr. Faragher.
Mr. Faragher: Your Excellency, the Isle of Man Post Office Authority does not have any licensing or enforcement role in relation to television reception on the Island by persons in possession of satellite dishes. However, to assist the hon. member for Council Mrs. Hanson, I have caused enquiries to be made on the subject at officer level from both the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry and I am advised that the use of a satellite dish for viewing satellite- transmitted television programmes is subject to a special £10 one-off licence issued under Section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This licence is rather cumbersomely called the 'T.V. Receive Only Receiving Equipment Licence' or `T.V.R.0'. licence for short and I have a copy of the licence for the hon. member which may be of interest to her. I understand there are three such licences which have been issued in the Isle of Man and I am also advised that the subject of licences for satellite television receiving dishes is currently under review jointly by the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mrs. Hanson: A supplementary question, Your Excellency. Am I to assume
Broadcasting — Television — Satellite Transmissions — Question by Mrs. Hanson TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2277
then, that there are only three dishes in operation on the Island at this moment, because you have indicated that only three extra licences have been issued?
The Speaker: A supplementary, Your Excellency. As this matter is currently under review, would you take up with Executive Council the possibility of the Island receiving the revenue derived from such licences as satellite programmes can emanate from any part of the world and be received by a recipient in the Isle of Man?
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, perhaps the hon. member could also answer, is he aware of the fact that no licence is required for transmitting from the Isle of Man by satellite?
Mr. Faragher: Your Excellency, as I pointed out at the start of my reply, the Isle of Man Post Office Authority is not involved in the issue of these licences in any shape or form and neither is its counterpart in the United Kingdom; the British Post Office has nothing whatever to do with this. They are handled at the moment by the Department of Trade and Industry. As far as the hon. Mr. Speaker's supplementary question is concerned, I would assure him that correspondence on this particular matter has been passed to Executive Council in response to this question being placed and laying out the situation as we see it. In response to the supplementary question from the hon. member for Council, Mrs. Hanson, whether there are only three dishes on the Island at this moment, I would say on the face of it, since there are only three licences issued, that could well be the case, but these licences, whilst I will not actually state to whom they have been issued, have been issued to persons who may well have more than one at their disposal at this time, but as far as we know it would indicate that only three are in use at this time.
The Governor: Hon. members, that completes the oral answers.
MEMBERS OF TYNWALD — ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS - QUESTION BY MR. CRINGLE FOR WRITTEN ANSWER
The Governor: Question 15 is for written answer.
Question:- The hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle, to ask the Chairman of Executive Council:
Will you give a list setting out the possible and actual attendances of all members of Tynwald at meetings held during the life of the present House of Keys of the several statutory bodies of which they are members?
Answer:—
In the time available it is not possible to provide the information requested as
Members of Tynwald — Attendance at Meetings - Question by Mr. Cringle for Written Answer T2278 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 this is not within my special cognizance. I will however cause a list to be prepared and this will be circulated to members in due course.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL — EXCESS EXPENDITURE - APPROVED The Governor: We therefore turn, hon. members, to the main Agenda Paper. Item 4, Executive Government Excess Expenditure. I call on the Chairman of Executive Council to move. Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move: That Tynwald authorises the Treasury, in respect of the year ended 31st March 1986, to apply from surplus receipts totalling £1,095,350 of Executive Government, the sum of £106,702 in payment of excess expenditure. For 1985/86 Tynwald authorised nett expenditure for Executive Government of £8,462,750. The actual nett expenditure was £7,474,102 as an underspending of £988,648. However, gross expenditure exceeded the estimate by £106,702 and gross receipts exceeded estimates by £1,095,350. It is therefore necessary to seek Tynwald approval to meet the excess expenditure of £106,702 from the excess receipts. The situation has purely arisen on the pension section of Executive Government, where transfer values received exceeded the estimate but transfer values paid also exceeded the estimate. Of course no control can be exercised over the payment of transfer values and in this year the estimates proved insufficient. Dr. Moore: 1 beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Your Excellency, I support the resolution but I would like to make a point as Speaker, speaking on behalf of the House of Keys and not as a member for Garff, in respect of it. It is, Your Excellency, that if hon. members of Tynwald, still members of Government, wish to examine Government files to satisfy themselves on either the accuracy as to these figures or, indeed, in respect of statements which are capable of other interpretation they should be able to continue with their long established right to examine those files. Unfortunately, I have learned in recent days that requests and for files for various reasons are either being refused or the files provided are not up to date, and refusals have been on the instruction of the Governor in Council. Your Excellency, rather than place a resolution of urgent public importance on a crowded Agenda, I would be happy if Executive Council would look at this matter and reassure the Court in the course of the day's sitting that files will be available to hon. members on request, or I will accept the chairman's assurance that members today may as in the past examine files on request. The desired ability of that is quite obvious to all members of the Court and when you get a resolution, Your Excellency, on which there may be queries as to interpretation then it is absolutely essential that hon. members as members of Government should be fully informed. Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, although this does not bear any direct relationship to the question, I am glad it has been raised. The Governor: Well now, Dr. Mann, I must ask you to hesitate for a moment
Executive Council — Excess Expenditure — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2279 there. It is not a question in the sense of a question, it is a motion in the sense of a question, and you will of course have the right of reply. I do not think the intervention justifies you speaking now. Dr. Mann: I am quite prepared to. The Governor: I will ask you to speak in a moment if I may, Dr. Mann. Now does any other hon. member wish to speak to that motion, item 4 on the Agenda? Then I do call on Dr. Mann to reply. Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I cannot speak for boards of Tynwald but I can speak for the files held by Executive Council in Government Office. Up until the change in the status of Your Excellency, files were made available to members on request on the consent and with the consent of the Governor. Since the change of status of Your Excellency, inasmuch as we now have Governor in Council, files are available to members upon request and with the consent of Governor in Council. In the ordinary course of events those files are freely available to members. Under certain circumstances, mainly when a matter is under consideration by Governor in Council, I think it would be unwise sometimes for those files to be available in the middle of consultations and under certain circumstances the Governor in Council has the perfect right in law to withhold those files until those consultations have been completed. That is as I understand the legal position. In the ordinary course of events it will cause no difficulties at all. The Speaker: May I ask a question, Your Excellency? The traditional right of members, then, is going to be denied on the instructions of Executive Council?
Dr. Mann: There is no traditional right except assumed by yourself, sir.
The Speaker: There is a traditional right, sir!
The Governor: I call upon the Attorney-General to throw light on this.
The Attorney-General: Well, Your Excellency, the legal position is clear enough. The proceedings of Executive Council are confidential and can only be revealed with the consent of the now Chairman of Executive Council. That is the position.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, could I ask the Attorney, then, what is the position of Government files? The Attorney-General: Well, if the Government files relate to the proceedings of Executive Council they are covered by the comment I have made. If they are currently the proceedings of Executive Council those are confidential without the consent of the Chairman of Executive Council. The Speaker: Traditionally hon. members have been able to obtain those files on request.
The Attorney-General: Well, Your Excellency, I cannot comment on the traditions, I am simply commenting on the legal position. The proceedings of Executive Council are confidential, members of Executive Council are not permitted
Executive Council — Excess Expenditure — Approved T2280 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 and therefore, obviously, the staff are not permitted to reveal the contents of the proceedings of Executive Council without the consent of the chairman. That is simple enough. The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion which has been put by the Chairman of Executive Council, seconded, debated and replied to — that of item 4 on your Agenda. Will hon. members in favour please say aye; those against, say no. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, J.H. Kneale, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Faragher, Brown, May, Duggan, Cretney, Martin, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving, Dr. Moore, Messrs. Cain, Bell and the Speaker — 22 Against: Mr. Delaney — 1
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys with 22 votes being cast in favour and one vote against.
In the Council - For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Radcliffe, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Callin — 8 Against: Nil The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council eight votes in favour, none against, therefore the resolution carries.
LOAN SANCTIONS — REVOCATION APPROVED
The Governor: Item 5, Revocation of Loan Sanctions.
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, I beg to move -
That the Loan Sanctions detailed totalling £964,097 be and the same are hereby revoked.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
NOBLE'S HOSPITAL — REPAIRS TO FLAT ROOFS - EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 6, Noble's Hospital — Repairs to Flat Roofs.
Loan Sanctions — Revocation Approved Noble's Hospital — Repairs to Flat Roofs — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2281
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I beg to move —
That Tynwald —
(1) Approves of the Department of Health and Social Security incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £120,000, for the repairs to flat roofs to the Outpatients, Medical Records and X-ray Departments at Noble's Hospital. (2) Authorises Treasury to expend out of capital moneys during the year ending 31st March 1987, a sum not exceeding £120,000 to meet the cost of (1) above. (3) Approves of and sanctions borrowings not exceeding £120,000 being made by Government, such borrowings to be repaid within a period of 15 years.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
BALLAMONA HOSPITAL - ENERGY CONSERVATION SCHEME, PHASE 2 - EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 7, Ballamona Hospital — Energy Conservation.
The Governor: I call on the Chairman of the Department of Health and Social Security to move, Mr. Callin.
Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald - (1) Approves of the Department of Health and Social Security incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £333,000 in connection with Phase 2 of the Energy Conservation Scheme at Ballamona Hospital. (2) Authorises Treasury to expend out of capital moneys during the year ending 31st March 1987, a sum not exceeding £225,000, this being in addition to the sum of £75,000 as indicated in the Treasury Capital Estimates. (3) Approves of and sanctions borrowings not exceeding £225,000 being made by Government, such borrowings to be repaid within a period of 20 years.
Your Excellency, members will recall that in December of last year a resolution was approved to enable Phase 1 of a major scheme of works to proceed at Ballamona Hospital to provide a new heating system in part of the hospital and the upgrading of the heating services and plant in the remainder. The first phase was the part
Ballamona Hospital — Energy Conservation Scheme, Phase 2 - Expenditure Approved T2282 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 culmination of a major report commissioned by the Health Services Board from a firm of heating consultants which showed the existing system's inefficiency, that the present distribution mains and some of the central boiler plant were beyond economic repair and that a positive need existed to re-examine the whole of the hospital's energy requirements and how these should be met. The report advised on a number of options, all of which were aimed to provide a modern heating system designed with economy and efficiency in mind. Each option was tailored to a phased programme of works to assist funding and took account of the possible future redevelopment of the Ballamona site as a whole. Briefly, the decision to undertake this scheme stemmed from the Health Services committee's recognition of the need to conserve energy to introduce methods of heating control and management and to generally upgrade its hospitals' heating systems. This task was geared to the modification of existing services and to progressively install new services and plant suitable to meet the heating demands and energy management requirements of the present day. At the time the Health Services Board commissioned the report it was recognised from the outset that the problems at Ballamona were unique. The hospital's heating system underwent major upgrading and re-organisation in 1955, but this was in an era where energy conservation was not seen as a prime requirement. As a result the plant was chosen more on the practicality of modifying existing services to match a new boiler plant and distribution system with modest capital outlay rather than economic running costs. The system installed at that time was based on central boiler plant with energy distribution via live steam mains which, in turn, required conversion to hot water for the heating of wards and other units. The length of the steam mains extended to just under one quarter of a mile before some of this conversion took place and, as a consequence, it should be appreciated that the maintenance of these mains presented problems of their own. Coupled to this was the fact that because of its age the steam mains were rapidly arriving at a stage where they were becoming beyond economic repair. In addition, the heating system as a whole was difficult to manage or modify to provide the control necessary to achieve economies in running costs and performance. The situation was not helped by the existence of buildings on a widespread site which were also designed in the days of low energy conservation priorities but which had to be maintained in a large number of areas at levels of heating comfort to meet the needs of geriatric patients requiring high temperatures and subsequent high heating losses. It became apparent, therefore, following appraisal, that in real terms operationally the plant and heating services were reaching a stage where serious consideration had to be given to the future of the system as a whole. Although the system could be upgraded the result would be a technological imbalance, in that it would be difficult to achieve economies in use and satisfactory energy management by utilising a system of heat production and distribution which had been superseded elsewhere by more modern methods to achieve the performance now required in a modern hospital site. A firm decision was therefore made to embark on a new concept to provide the site with energy and entailed the provision of modern boiler plant installed in each of the hospital's satellite wards and other units situated away from the main centre block, thus abandoning the present system of live steam distribution to these areas but with the retention of the main boiler plant to serve the centre
Ballamona Hospital — Energy Conservation Scheme, Phase 2 - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2283
block and its ancillary services only. As I have mentioned, to achieve this aim the Health Services Board decided on a phased programme of works, the first of which provided for the separation of satellite wards from the old live steam mains from the central boiler plant. This phase provided separate boiler packages for these wards and, where necessary, provided also for the upgrading of the services within the wards. This part of the programme is nearing completion and the new plant is on line to be operational for the coming winter. The Phase 2 works, now before this hon. Court, provides for the work necessary to upgrade the heating to the remainder of the hospital not covered by Phase I and entails a replacement of one of the two main boilers which in any case is nearing the end of its working life. A new chimney for the boiler exhausts, complete replacement of the steam main it has been decided to retain; upgrading of energy supplies to the hospital's laundry and main kitchen and the upgrading of some heating services to the accommodation within the centre block. The task has not proved easy as, apart from technical problems in providing new services to be compatable to those, it has been decided to retain. Old asbestos lagging was encountered, which, of course, required specialist removal. In addition building works are necessary to accommodate some of the new plant together with oil supply tanks. The total cost of the Phase 2 works is a sum not exceeding £333,000, which covers the works mentioned and professional fees. The contract offered is designed to be completed by November of this year. This fact, coupled with the completion of Phase 1 works before that month, should result in the whole of the hospital next winter being heated by the new plant. This scheme, to the bystander, has little to show for it. Its effects overall, however, will be a considerable improvement in comfort in an environment where heating is an essential component of the care of the patient. It also eliminates a situation where increasing demands on maintenance to the old system and its deterioration could have resulted in a major breakdown and thus avoids the uncompromising effects that this could have on the well-being of the hospital's purpose as a whole. Your Excellency, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.
Mr. Cannan: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, we are now told that the total cost of Phase 2 is £333,000. However, in the Green Book of Estimates on page 61, item 15, it was shown as £250,000. Now I have heard that it is possible that Phase 1 cost less than was budgeted and that the addition of some £83,000 has been transferred from Phase 1. Would the chairman be kind enough to confirm if that is correct in whole or in part, and insofar as the extra expenditure has not been incurred to a transfer from Phase 1, could he tell us the reasons for it?
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to comment? Then I call on the chairman to reply.
Mr. Collin: Your Excellency, it is true that in the Green Book the sum of £250,000 was the figure that was shown but I think it has to be said, when we are
Ballamona Hospital — Energy Conservation Scheme, Phase 2 - Expenditure Approved T2284 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 dealing in work of this kind it is very specialised and it is very difficult sometimes to get accurate costings. It is also true to say that when the tenders were received for Phase 2, the Health Service committee was a little disappointed to see the lowest quotation that came forward. The quotation for Phase 2, the breakdown — and I think it is important if members are interested to get this but I have to say also that last week the officers of the board did make themselves available in the members room for an hour to answer any of the questions that members had but I understand only two members turned up — now the breakdown of the sum shown in the resolution is that for the heating installation itself, £264,000; provision for asbestos removal £8,425; zoning, £12,000; builders works, which I mentioned, £12,500; bond insurance £2,500; professional fees, £25,000; and equipment, £8,000, and the actual buildings that are involved with this work is, of course, a new boiler main, a main boiler, we are retaining one of the existing boilers which is in quite good condition, we will also provide services to heat the centre block and steam for the laundry and main kitchen, it will also involve the new system for the administration block, the new boiler for the administration block and general upgrading of the services within the area to improve efficiency. Now with regard to savings there is a possible minor saving, on the project Phase 1, of approximately £20,000 but it would be inadvisable to make any reduction at this point in time, and that is on the resolution that is before the Court today.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Department of Health and Social Security at item 7 of our Agenda. Hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
MANX MUSEUM EXTENSION — EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 8, Extension to Manx Museum.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I beg to move —
That Tynwald approves of the Manx Museum and National Trust carrying out an extension to the Manx Museum at a total cost not exceeding 0,315,000.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution I have the honour to present to the Court today on behalf of the Manx Museum and National Trust represents, if passed the culmination of an objective that the museum has been striving to achieve over a long period of years. Its very appearance on the Agenda portrays a changing viewpoint about heritage and the value of portraying our heritage adequately to both the Manx people and visitors to our shores. To put it bluntly, sir, heritage and its presentation has become a commercial asset that the Court can no longer ignore. The saga of this extension dates back to 1967 when, as part of long-term policy, the museum advanced its extension scheme which was devised to provide a new
Manx Museum Extension — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2285 exhibition gallery, a museum education service, a lecture hall, a conservation laboratory to fulfil the museum's prime responsibility to preserve the collections entrusted to its care, and provision is also included for a modest extension to the museum shop. The plans related to this proposal have been and are still available on a table in the Members' Room for members' scrutiny. I would concede at this point that they are inadequate in one respect and it is one that we regret at the museum, but it is that car parking still remains a provision that cannot be completely fulfilled within these plans. There are some 19 car parking spaces but, inevitably in the future, we will have to seek a pattern of provision of extended car parking in the interests of the presentation of the museum. Now over the years a pattern of progression towards today's resolution has been indulged in by the Museum. There has been purchase of properties, site demolition, and all has culminated in the presentation of our estimates earlier this year of a requirement of £1,690,000 to meet the cost of what I would describe as a new shop window for the Island's cultural attractions and assets, sir. The plans are those of the Government architect and the costs have been vetted by the Treasury. Happily, sir, the competitive tendering associated with this contract has enabled us to reduce the figure requested today from that of £1,690,000 to £1,315,000, the amount of the successful tender and associated charges. The tenders, which were the subject of close scrutiny on the part of both the sub- committee of the museum and on the part of the Treasury, were very competitive, and of the three tenders — McArd Contractors Limited, Format Building Techniques Limited and Parkinsons Limited — Parkinsons proved to be the lowest and was duly accepted. Subject to the approval of this Court sir, the work is intended to start in September and it is with the greatest pleasure that I now present this resolution to a Court that has shown a greater awareness of its cultural inheritance than many of its predecessors, happy that the outcome will be an endorsement of the Manx Museum and National Trust policy to keep our heritage firmly in the minds of the Manx people for the future. I beg to move.
Mr.Faragher: Your Excellency, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, no-one can underestimate the importance of the museum for the reasons that Mr. Speaker has said and will no doubt expand on on future occasions. However, I believe we have got to keep a balance of priorities, and the fact is that we have an amazing spread of museums and museum facilities in this Island at the present time. In fact it is extremely interesting that the people who have been interviewed for jobs at the museum at a high level have expressed absolute amazement at the breadth and scope of the museum facilities existing in this Island. They have hardly believed that such a small community could have so many museums with such wide facilities. It is excellent that the capital cost of this project has been reduced from a figure of £1,600,000 in the Green Book to £1,315,000 on the Agenda paper and those responsible are to be congratulated, but it is not just the capital cost we are talking about. The fact is that the annual loan charges will still amount to some £200,000 a year. Also, the extra running costs will amount to some £20,000 a year, in all some £220,000 to be met out of revenue year after year. I cannot accept the statement made by Mr. Speaker today, or the hon. member Mr. Faragher in the past, that
Manx Museum Extension — Expenditure Approved T2286 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 there will be any kind of commercial return from this investment commensurate with the running costs either directly or indirectly and I believe that this expenditure should not be a priority, but there are many other items of expenditure which are more desirable, in particular to maintain the fabric of our capital assets and many of our buildings and roads which are undoubtedly deteriorating around us and, the longer they are left, will cost more and more to put into proper order. I would also submit, if money is not to be spent on maintaining our existing assets this money would be far better spent on something such as an all-weather running track which would benefit many young local people, a wider section of the community and might in fact help to encourage visitors for sporting events. So although I accept that this expenditure may be desirable, in my view, like much that is desirable, it is not practicable and I shall accordingly vote against this resolution.
Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I rise to support the hon. Mr. Speaker's resolution here this morning. I have been here for a long number of years when he has brought forward this sort of resolution in relation to the development and it is appropriate that at this Heritage Year the money should be provided for this end. I am aware that there are other projects which are necessary to be done and will have to be tackled in the very near future, and one is a courthouse. That is a problem that has got to be set in train and is a problem that has got to be tackled. We are aware that whenever you do a job of this sort there are going to be on- going costs. That applies all the way round, but I think that this is important that, in a time of recession to some degree in the building industry, Government has a regular consistent programme of development and re-development so that those who are trained in the building industry are maintained in that service. I have seen many of them drift off into other areas, joiners et cetera, harbour policemen and that sort of thing, and very seldom do these people go back into the building industry. We also want to maintain a training programme for those in the building industry so when, hopefully, an upturn will come in the future there will be those readily available on the Island who can do the jobs which are necessary to be done and in all these circumstances I certainly will be supporting Mr. Speaker's resolution here this morning and I hope that future generations will appreciate the contribution that it will make to the heritage of the Island.
Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency,( was not going to speak but I can tell this Court that I was lobbied in Strand Street on Saturday by some of my friends from Douglas who said that they hoped that I would not be supporting this resolution today. They got a spirited and robust answer when I said that I would be supporting it with every fibre in my being. I think Mr. Speaker has put his finger really on this and I think Mr. Gilbey, the hon. member for Glenfaba, should really have listened to what Mr. Speaker was saying when he said this plan was formulated 20 years ago. It has taken 20 years of hard slog to get it this far. Now the one thing Mr. Gilbey displays in this Court this morning is that he knows the price of everything and the value of very little and, as far as I am concerned, the heritage of the Isle of Man for Manx men and women is priceless and I believe that at £1.3 million it is cheap at half the price. I reject the Dutch option given
Manx Museum Extension — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2287 by the hon. Mr. Gilbey when he says this money could be spent on an all-weather running track — or the roads, or pensions, or what next? As far as I am concerned, sir, those have all got priorities and I am saying that I am equally concerned that we have those as well — we need them; but from a tourist point of view, Mr. Speaker has understated the priority of prospective people visiting this Island when they talk about the high priority that they place on the culture and heritage of this Island, and if we need a shop window and the Manx Museum — we have reason to be proud of the Manx Museum in its present form, that is a tribute to the people who have worked there over the years — I believe we need . . . with a new director who has got vision, flair and I believe that man needs the correct start. This is a small vote of confidence in that man and I believe that the people of the Isle of Man as a body would say that this is money well spent and I have no hesitation whatever in supporting this resolution.
Mr. Morrey: Your Excellency, I believe that heritage is a growth industry and I believe if we neglect it today we shall regret it tomorrow. We have neglected it for 20 years; if we project it for another 20 years how much is it going to cost then? We very nearly lost important items of our heritage, we nearly lost part of the second most important railway in the world. That could just as easily have gone down the drain but now it is functioning and I hope it will continue to function, and I will therefore be supporting the extension to the museum. There is no way we must neglect the heritage because it is the best selling point we have got and, Heaven knows, we need everything we can get.
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, I too fully support this resolution. The only regret I have is that it has taken us so long to get this far. I believe that if we relied on priorities it would never get off the ground; it must stand apart from other efforts and the sooner we get on with it the better for this Island, because it is one of the best facilities we have got.
Mr. Faragher: Your Excellency, I must say I am heartened this morning by . . . I will not detract from the hon. member for Glenfaba if I say that the opposition appears to be relatively lightweight this morning. The reason that this project must go ahead this year, of course, is not because it is Heritage Year or because it is the centenary of the Manx Museum, it is because it is a viable, sound, honest and realistic project and it should have been tackled long ago but, as Mr. Speaker has said this morning, this is a recognition, I think, of a real commercial asset that this Island has got. It has taken a long time to recognise it as such but I am pleased to see that it is now being recognised by more and more people, not only on the Island but off it as well. Your Excellency, I have been a member of the Manx Museum and National Trust now for, I think, very nearly three years and I have been very much surprised by the considerable enthusiasm and spirit there is amongst the Trustees now and, more importantly, I think, amongst the staff of the Manx Museum. The hon. member of Council, Mr. Lowey, has already referred to the enthusiasm of the present director in post and that, I think, has served as an inspiration to us all, but what he is capable of producing there is very significant indeed and I think his track record to date has proven that he is well capable of delivering the goods.
Manx Museum Extension — Expenditure Approved T2288 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
But what the museum needs in the future is a higher profile than it has at the moment and that is what is being worked on. That is what the Tourist Board is aiming at at the moment — raising the profile of the history and the culture and the uniqueness of this Island, and all these threads are starting to pull together. It is slow; the answer is not instant coffee, as some members would demand from us; it is not going to be instant, it is going to take a while, but we are all starting to pull in the same direction, and it is a direction which I am perfectly convinced is going to produce, contrary to what the hon. member, Mr. Gilbey, may say, real and tangible benefit for the Island at some stage in the future. This particular project, this extension, is going to really bring to life the Manx Museum in Douglas and, make no mistake, it is going to be a major asset for Douglas; make no mistake about that. It is going to actually bring together all the strands of the current developments and refurbishments in that building culminating, amongst other things, in the sharp end of the financial argument, the provision of proper shop premises for the Manx Museum so the Manx Museum is going to be able to selectively purchase and selectively sell all that is good about Manx crafts and the Manx industries and to present the Isle of Man in a tasteful, proper and, I am sure, ultimately commercially successful way. At the moment, as hon. members who are familiar with the museum will know, the shop facilities in the museum are absolutely pathetic. This extension, amongst all the other facilities that it will provide, will act as a shop window for Manx history and culture and, furthermore, the importance of that is that I think it will act as a spur to all those outside in the private sector to do likewise and to raise their standards and that has got to be Government's role in this particular venture: to lead and show by example, and I am quite sure it will do it. The comparison between this project and the provision of a running track for a similar sum of money is perhaps a sad comparison to draw. We have always got to beware of the temptation to provide, as I say, instant coffee answers. All right, provision of a running track — it is there, it is instant, one could perhaps immediately measure the people that that may draw, and there is no getting away from the fact that that is an asset that the Island does require, but we have got to be very careful that we do not get lured into the trap, as we have done in the past, of trying to mimic modern facilities which have been provided on the mainland by what used to be our competitors in the holiday game, because they can always build them bigger, they can always build them better, they can always build them cheaper than we can and, at the end of the day, they are always going to be far more easily accessible and ours are going to run up ever increasing bills to maintain and they will have an overriding disadvantage in that we will be providing nothing that they cannot get on the mainland. As I say, bigger, better, cheaper and easier, but what we have got in the museum is something that they have not got on the mainland and never will have, and that is the fact or that we have got to recognise and make the most of. Hon. members, I am sure that the point I think has been well made by other speakers than myself. I would urge the hon. Court to giver complete support to this gesture — and it is a gesture; I think we are living in a generation which is conspicuously selfish, one that has done a great deal to detract from the past and in some stages, as will be illustrated, I think, later on on this Agenda, is doing its best to detract from the future as well. Let it be said that this particular Tynwald
Manx Museum Extension — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2289
Court gave something substantial to the future of the Island and I would ask hon. members to support this resolution as it stands.
Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, I will be supporting this motion on the Agenda today but I hope you will excuse me if I use the occasion to have a little moan about our standards of excellence because, quite frankly, our standards of excellence are far too low. (Mr. Brown: Hear, hear.) Yesterday I had the pleasure of taking a visitor round Castle Rushen and on to Cregneash and I can say I was ashamed to show them round Cregneash — a beautiful setting, a beautiful village, and yet a crop of hay where it should have been trimmed neat and tidy, nettles growing in a field adjacent to a garden, overflowing litter bins, things of that nature. In the castle I could not find my way round; I did not really know what to show them. Again, there specifically, in one of the ancient rooms a litter bin overflowing with Coke cans onto the floor — inexcusable! We have to get our standards right, we have to signpost all our national monuments properly and tastefully designed. In the past it has been good enough for us, but if we try to sell this as a tourist attraction — and it is a tourist attraction 7.we have got to lift our standards of excellence. I hope Mr. Speaker will excuse me for saying this because I am a member of the National Trust and I could have said it there, but I feel that is one of the main points we have to bear in mind.
Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I only have a very few words I wish to say on this particular subject. One point I want to make is that a number of speakers have implied that heritage is somehow a commodity for sale as if it were manufactured. I think it is very important that we should be quite clear in our minds that our heritage is ourselves. We are not a plastic Disney world. Heritage is something that has to be fostered and our cultural heritage has to be encouraged and it has to be a part of our normal lives. It is then not for sale but it is for us to invite others to enjoy it with us. I am concerned that we should not think of our heritage as something artificial but that we should think of it as something that we all enjoy. The hon. member for Glenfaba implied somehow that the enjoyment of heritage was a minority pursuit. I can only comment that if ten per cent. of the population of the Island enjoyed a farming experience, enjoyed a heritage event and celebration, I do not believe that the enjoyment of ourselves, of our own heritage, is a minority activity in the Island, although he may be part of that minority that neither understands it nor appreciates it. I think it is most important that this resolution goes through. It is most important to create in the museum the capability of passing on our cultural heritage, which is the primary purpose of the museum complex.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, the hon. member for Glenfaba has taken far too much stick for what he said. I think he was totally right to make us stop and think. I am going to support the resolution but not for the nonsense that has been spoken this morning about something where we have got something exclusive. Every community has its own heritage and it is right and proper that they should spend towards encouraging and fostering it, but the hon. member is totally right — it is a minority. we in actual fact talk . . . can a community of 65,000 people afford £1 million plus? The answer is 'yes' or 'no' and the answer at this moment is 'yes'.
Manx Museum Extension — Expenditure Approved T2290 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
The idea he thinks is that if we did not spend the money here we would spend it on something else that would look more attractive, a running track; he should know by now after five years in this Court that does not work. It just goes back in the coffers; it will be spent on something else. That is what will happen, whether it will be this or some other building. It is needed for the employment of people. That is correct, that is true. Mr. Anderson pointed in that direction. That is correct; that is one reason I will support it because I think it will do that. It will tidy up that area; it certainly will do. That has been lying derelict with cars parked on it for long enough and that is the heritage of the Isle of Man as well when you talk about it: the Victorian and the Edwardian frontages — that is what is deteriorating around us. I wonder what we are going to show the people in the future when they come back to it because, if you look around the general pattern of the Isle of Man, we are destroying the very heritage you are going to spend this £1 million on for the lack of planning control on what you are can build and what you cannot build. You have only got to walk outside this building and you would see it. Then I hear so many people standing up and talking about heritage and at the same time they ignore the reality. Unless you control the environment in which you live you cannot your control heritage, you never will; we will have nothing left for them to see. I am sorry to hear the hon. member for Middle talk about the state of Cregneash, but it is true. Somebody had to say it and I am delighted he has said it. The people who are paid the amount of money we pay to the Government Property Trustees - the chairman sits there, the member for Castletown. It is a fact. When you take people down there, it is disgusting.
Mr. Brown: It is not the Government Property Trustees.
Mr. Delaney: The museum, the trust — the situation is that is a fact and that is what is seen. The people who come along see this thing we are trying to sell and then see the dirt and the squalor we leave it in. I believe the members will support this because it is there on the Agenda paper to be supported. There is not a running track down to support. There is not an indoor sports centre or amusement park to support; none of those things are down there. What is down there is the spending on this museum extension and that is why the members should support it — because that is what is front of us now. The fact that we could think if we could spend the money somewhere else is a nonsense because it is not there for us to vote for. Your Excellency, I hope that when it is built, that consideration, I ask the Speaker, for the people who live so tightly adjoined to this property . . . They live within 20 yards, the whole of that community, around where this development is taking place. They have suffered enough in the past from the delapidation of the site, and I hope, when the construction takes place, control will be made of the contractor that the dirt and the smoke and the general building atmosphere will not impinge on their lifestyles.
The Governor: I call on the Speaker to reply.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I can only express my real pleasure that the debate has been supportive of the resolution which I presented to the Court. I agree with the hon. member for Glenfaba: there will be charges, there will be staffing
Manx Museum Extension — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2291 requirements. I am sorry that the hon. member for Glenfaba has not read Brown and his exhortation to us to preserve 'wharer is left to us of ancient heritage'. But I do note with interest the comment that has been made by Mr. Payne, the hon. member for Middle, and I want to get this one in perspective because it relates in part to what he has said and in part to what the hon. member for Glenfaba has said. The hon. member for Glenfaba has said we have a range of facilities in this connection which is quite extensive. It is quite true. Happily we have the Groves at Ramsey — a splendid portrayal of Victorian living. We have the Peggy at Castletown and I doubt the people of Castletown do anything but value that, and then we have Cregneash. Now unhappily, despite the best efforts of the museum, we have not been able to get the finances to improve Cregneash in the sense that we bring it into the sort of styling which the village deserves — improve it backwards in time to create there the crofter/fishing village, a living village, which is the essential need of today for portrayal both to our own people and to those who come and visit us. Now, Your Excellency, that is our ambition and I would say that several of the elements that he has referred to in connection with Cregneash, if the Court would forgive me must relate to other aspects of social provision in the Isle of Man: the fact that somebody has not cut their thistles is not necessarily the fault of the museum; the fact that somebody has not emptied the dustbins is again not necessarily the fault of the Manx Museum. Taking those into account I have to accept that there are ruins in that village which I wanted to see removed 10, 15, 20 years ago, which I want to see removed and replaced with a genuine replacement of what the original was. That is still the objective and it is our hope that Cregneash will come alive. Now you have touched on the castle, where we have an interest but not an overall interest; that interest is shared by the Government Property Trustees, and I am replying on this particular resolution because the point has been specifically raised. I would tell you that as far as the Heritage Foundation is concerned, its ambition has been to try and make that castle come alive. Unfortunately Government, in the form of Executive Council, intervened when we tried to get a member of the Tourist Board, a member of the Government Property Trustees and a member of the Manx Museum to go to America to see how presentation was done in a modern style and in the best possible style relating to the oldest of our presentations. That was foiled by Executive Council — deliberately — and the only person who went was the Director of the Manx Museum. Now that has been attitude which has related to heritage and which is gradually being dissipated by means of resolutions such as this. I hope that there will be change in the future and acknowledgement of just what you are saying this morning. There is a need for improvement and we accept it at the museum. Now, returns in unexpected ways — the Manx Museum and National Trust is not only involved in the displays I have mentioned to you, it is involved in maintaining lands in and around the Island for the benefit of the community. The hon. member for Council, Mr. Lowey, is right. If you looked at your Radio Times last week you would see part of the National Trust lands at Maughold portrayed as being the sort of beauty of landscape that would bring Mancunians on holiday to the Isle of Man. Now there is a commercial offspin of the work of the National Trust. I do not devalue it in any form, it is only part of a pattern, but it is there. There is no question for me to reply to; there is the willing agreement of this Court
Manx Museum Extension — Expenditure Approved T2292 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 to continuing a policy of advancement of heritage in the Isle of Man through the medium of the Manx Museum and National Trust, and I would say to you today that this resolution, hon. members, is a beginning. It is not the end, it is a beginning. There will be other resolutions following up the points that have been made today and which in turn, I hope, will see the serious consideration of all hon. members. Your Excellency, 1 do thank hon. members for their support.
The Governor: Hon. members, 1 put to you the motion item 8 of our Agenda standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Speaker. Will those hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
BILLS FOR SIGNATURE — REQUISITE SIGNATURES OBTAINED
The Governor: Hon. members, the Bills have all been signed by a quorum of both branches. The hon. Court will now adjourn until 2.35.
The Court adjourned at 1.08 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ROYAL ASSENT
The Governor: Hon. members, I cannot claim, as Mr. Winston Churchill once did, to have created the state of Jordan over tea, but I can claim over lunch to have given Royal Assent to the Food (Emergency Provisions) Act 1986 and thus permitted action to be taken, which I understand will be taken later today.
GLEN DARRAGH ROAD, GLEN VINE — ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEME — EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Having completed item 8 we come to item 9, Glen Darragh. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board.
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald approves of the Highway and Transport Board carrying out phase 2 of the road improvement scheme on the Glen Darragh Road, Glen Vine, Marown at a cost not exceeding £60,000.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
Bills for Signature — Requisite Signatures Obtained Announcement of Royal Assent Glen Darragh Road, Glen Vine — Road Improvement Scheme — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2293
ELLERSLIE DEPOT — CONSTRUCTION OF A WELDING SHOP - EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 10, Plant Maintenance Depot, Welding Shop. I call on the Chairman of the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board to move.
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald approves of the Highway and Transport Board constructing a welding shop at its Ellerslie Depot in Crosby, at a cost not exceeding £15,000.
Financial approval was obtained in the 1983/84 capital estimates, in column 2, for expenditure of £10,000 for a shed, to be used as a new smithy and metal store to replace existing accommodation which had become too small in which to operate efficiently. It was intended in the following year that the existing courtyard would be covered in to provide a satisfactory working area for the blacksmith and the welders. This workshop, which will be incorporated in the overall depot building, is necessary under the Health and Safety at Work Act, as welding and paint preparation should be carried out in separate areas away from other workmen. At present space is taken up in the main workshop where fitters and mechanics are carrying out routine maintenance and repairs to board vehicles. Welding, naturally, gives off both sparks and acrid fumes and, while the welders have protective clothing, the workmen alongside obviously cannot have similar protection. Therefore regular complaints are received by the manager when these operations take place. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
Mr. Cringle: I beg to second, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Are you seconding? Did I hear you reserve your . . .
Mr. Cringle: Yes, I beg to second, Your Excellency.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I rise to seek clarification. Since 1983/84 we have come a long way towards bringing together departments of Government and making moves to co-ordinate in such a manner as to ensure efficiency for the future, and I would like an assurance that this decision has not been taken in isolation but it is in fact part of an overall plan on the part of Government to attain a greater degree of sufficiency or self-sufficiency within the new empire that will absorb the Highway and Transport Board, and I would hope that this has been taken after consultation with whatever elements the Highway Board are to be amalgamated in the future, and so ensure that we are going to get that degree of efficiency that the Treasury are seeking from every pattern of Government operation.
Mr. Morrey: Your Excellency, my observations were somewhat in the same vein as Mr. Speaker's. When the Highway Board joins with the Harbour Board I understand that there will be many common facilities and I often wonder whether
Ellerslie Depot — Construction of a Welding Shop — Expenditure Approved T2294 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 this is not another common facility, and it bothers me when we are being asked to spend money or are spending money just before the formation of these new departments. I realise this is not a vast amount of money but, in this case, if we look after the pennies the pounds will look after themselves. One particular example — I understand that the two boards, the Harbour Board and the Highway Board, have each got a hydraulic press. Well, one hydraulic press would do for the complete whole of Government, never mind about two boards, and I would hope they would take all this on board.
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, I have had my clothes stolen twice and I would like to compliment the hon. members for showing justifiable concern on this very important point. I was going to make the more general point, rather than dwelling on this particular aspect, because we have been assured that the Highway Board is going to require the welding shop facilities irrespective of the amalgamation. But I think the general point is very worthwhile making, that the Highway Board will be a part of a larger empire next year, as will many other boards, and we should not be leaving it until next year to look around and say 'Now, how can we rationalise and make necessary and defensible economies in our operations?'; We should be looking at this stage, and I was also going to make the general point of the need for all of us who are involved in amalgamation to be doing our advance planning at this stage.
Mr. Brown: Hear, hear.
The Governor: I call on Mr. Quirk to reply.
Mr. Quirk: Thank you, Your Excellency. I can assure the hon. members that the staff of my board have discussed with the members of the staff of the Harbour Board, and other boards as well in this particular situation, very closely and very seriously the situation of trying to absorb or to bring together in a useful and efficient manner the forces of these boards, and in this particular instance it is still felt that this building is necessary in that particular area where we have probably the largest collection of machinery of any board in the Isle of Man and it is absolutely necessary, both for the efficiency of our work and the safety of our men, to have this building in that particular instance and I hope the members will support it.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board at item 10. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
PURCHASE OF WHEEL COTTAGE, CRONK-E-CHULE, LAXEY - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 11, Purchase of Wheel Cottage, Cronk-e-Chule. I call upon the Chairman of the Government Property Tiustees.
Purchase of Wheel Cottage, Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2295
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald —
(1) authorises the Government Property Trustees to purchase the Wheel Cottage, Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey, and attached land from Isabella Margaret Scarffe for a sum not exceeding f8,500; (2) authorises the Treasury to expend out of capital moneys during the year ending 31st March 1987, a sum not exceeding £8,500 to meet the costs of the aforementioned purchase; and (3) approves of and sanctions borrowings not exceeding £8,500 being made by Government, such borrowings to be repaid within a period of 15 • years. Mr. Anderson: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Supporting the resolution, Your Excellency, it is rather interesting to note that the property is being bought from a lady Isabella (Laughter) in this case and that the name Scarffe, of course, was one brought into the mining community from Cornwall by miners along with Tregellis and other such people. But, apart from the historical pattern, I do want to applaud the work being done by the Government Property Trustees at Laxey in achieving what was being sought in the Court this morning — an advance in the presentation of an old heritage pattern and I will support this resolution as part of that advance, and I do in all sincerity compliment the Government Property Trustees on the action they are taking.
Mr. Martin: Your Excellency, I once again would like to compliment the Government Property Trustees on the project at Laxey Wheel. I am sure that it is a big benefit to the tourist industry and I am sure that the numbers of people will increase yearly, that go and visit Laxey Wheel. What I would like to know is, what is the projected use for this land and property? Thank you, Your Excellency.
Mr. Barran: Your Excellency, I would agree with the previous speakers. I think it is an excellent thing. I think this is the way forward for tourism and one only Alt opes — we have seen today, we have seen the Government Property Trustees doing IIIIPEhis item and in item 8 we had the National Trust — that maybe we could see them work more in hand together and come up with an overall plan of attack as far as this sort of development which has not just an educational and heritage thing but also a tourist aspect, and one would like to see whether it would be possible that we could see some sort of plan worked together between the National Trust, the Tourist Board and the Government Property Trustees for this sort of thing to be done on an island basis.
Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, after having to some degree knocked the Government Property Trustees this morning on Castle Rushen I feel I have to stand up and compliment them on this project. I visited it last week and I am pleased to say that all the things I said this morning about proper sign-posting and layout are going to be there when the project is finally finished, and I add my
Purchase of Wheel Cottage, Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey — Approved T2296 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 congratulations to the Government Property Trustees.
The Governor: I call on the chairman to reply.
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Your Excellency. Can I thank hon. members for their support of this scheme and could I just say that it is an integral part of the overall development, this cottage. It actually borders very much on the boundary of the Government Property Trustees' property and there is a plan in the Members' Room I am sure members have seen, and we were delighted, when this property became available, that the family approached us to give us the first choice to purchase it and for that I would like to pay our thanks to them for their generosity in helping us to acquire this cottage. Our plans for the future we hope will be that we would like to create a miner's cottage at the turn of the century and possibly with some sort of selling point-cum- whatever, but those are the ideal plans we are hoping to do in the near future. Your Excellency, I would just add that members may be interested to know that since we have started this investment, and this year, of course, is the first time that we have closed off the valley, if you like tried to reap the benefits of the investment by Government, and whereas last year in 1985 up to the week ending 4th July the admissions were 15,811, which brought in total receipts of £4,763, the 1986 figures up to the week ending 2nd July 1986, the admissions are 16,810, which is a thousand up, and our total receipts are £11,090, which I think justifies very much the investment by Government and shows that we have got to be realistic in our charges which will then help pay off any investment we do there, echoing this morning what was said by Mr. Speaker and the other members, that by using what we have here and investing in it properly the Isle of Man has a great asset, and I would just answer Mr. Payne, from the comment this morning — we are very concerned if our properties are not in good condition, in fact it is something we are trying to sort out. The professionalism of how we project our image is very important if we are to have a successful tourist industry. Your Excellency, I thank the members for their support.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Government Property Trustees at item 11. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
PULROSE INFANTS' SCHOOL - PROVISION OF YOUTH AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES - EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 12, Pulrose Infants' School. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education.
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald —
Pulrose Infants' School — Provision of Youth and Community Facilities - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2297
(1) approves of the Board of Education incurring expenditure not exceeding f71,250 for the necessary alterations at Pulrose infants' school to provide youth and community facilities; and (2) authorises the Treasury to expend during the year ending 31st March 1987, from capital transactions account, a sum not exceeding £1,250 (such sum to be additional to the £70,000 included in the Treasury capital estimates 1986/87).
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
RAMSEY GRAMMAR SCHOOL - PROVISION OF SPORTS HALL AND CHANGING ROOMS - EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 13, Ramsey Grammar School. I call on the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education to move.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, could I just say that the extensions have not had full planning approval and, subject to the Attorney-General's say-so, would it be better for the Planning Committee and Appeals Tribunal to withdraw while this is being debated, sir?
The Attorney-General: Yes, Your Excellency, it would be very wise for that to be done.
Mr. Walker: We have your leave, sir?
The Governor: Certainly.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, a point of order. Apart from all the interests being displayed by my hon. colleagues, rightly, there are the interests of those people who are involved in the planning, some of whom approached me, objecting to this particular proposal, and who will see the advance of this particular issue as a way of cementing the board's policy in advance of the planning application, and I seek your view, sir, as to the advisability of proceeding with it today at all.
The Governor: The learned Clerk. Well, hon. members, in reply to Mr. Speaker's point, the view of the learned Clerk, backed up by the Attorney-General, is that, whereas planning permission has not yet been confirmed, there is nothing in our constitutional set-up to prevent the board from seeking your financial authority. It may subsequently be that their plans have to be modified. But at this stage the view of both our learned Clerk and our learned Attorney is that it is right and proper to proceed and therefore, with your agreement, we will do so. Item 13. I call on the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Education to move.
Ramsey Grammar School — Provision of Sports Hall and Changing Rooms - Expenditure Approved T2298 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald approves of the Board of Education incurring expenditure of a sum not exceeding £650,000 in respect of a scheme to provide a sports hall and changing rooms at Ramsey Grammar School.
The provision of a sports hall is now an important feature in any secondary school building, and this reflects the changes that have taken place in the physical education curriculum over the last ten to 20 years. No longer is physical education included in the curriculum to provide a modicum of exercise for young people, but now, in addition, children are prepared for physical and recreational activities when they leave school. The breadth of the activites undertaken is now enormous, with children introduced to many games which require large indoor spaces. The sports hall at Ramsey Grammar School is designed, as are the sports halls in other secondary schools in the Island, to give this range of sports. Activities which can be undertaken in the sports hall include: five-a-side football; hockey; basket ball; netball; cricket; badminton; tennis; volleyball; tabletennis; trampolining; handball et cetera. The provision in the estimates for this scheme was £650,000 and the scheme is presented to Tynwald at a fixed price of this figure. These costs include the building of the sports hall and necessary changing rooms provision is included for the handicapped within these facilities. The building has been granted initial planning permission but is subject to a planning review which was heard on 9th July, the outcome of which is yet unknown. The scheme is therefore brought to Tynwald for approval, subject to the necessary planning approval being obtained. I beg to move, sir.
Mr. Bell: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I rise to oppose the resolution. This morning we heard the Chairman of the Board of Education say: 'If your cash is limited you have to find the money elsewhere'. Now that was in reply to a question on teaching and the provision of teaching staff in the schools. But it is obvious that, in incurring capital commitments of this sort, the board, as was illustrated effectively by the hon. member for Glenfaba this morning, are incurring charges for the future. Now, that future at the moment is one in which certain elements of education are certainly being rigorously curtailed. Some would regard them as very desirable elements of education, and I am talking in particular of country schools; that is one element of it, and in the modernisation of rural schools, which has not advanced to the extent perhaps that one would have hoped over the years, and I refer in particular to the Dhoon School at Maughold, which has been scheduled for modernisation for a considerable time; plans were produced, have been scrapped, and it still remains in its old form and, shall I say, unacceptable form from the point of view of proper housing for children in 1986. So I see the Board of Education as getting its priorities wrong. I believe the essential things are embodied in many of the things that today are being by-passed by the Board of Education, and I do not see this provision as being an absolute essential need at this time when, I believe, there are other priorities that should figure more prominently in the board's thinking than this one. In consequence, Your Excellency,
Ramsey Grammar School — Provision of Sports Hall and Changing Rooms - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2299
I will be voting against this resolution, realising that the implication will be to put even greater pressure on the Board of Education in the years ahead to meet this sort of charges and to curtail the sort of services that are under attack at the present time. I would suggest that Ramsey Grammar School is not at all badly dealt with at the present time. It has a declining school population and, even with the advent of the 16-year-olds, I do not expect that there will be a substantial increase there, and the need has consistently been met; there have been changes at the school and modifications, modernisation in fact, and at the moment I do not regard this, as I say, as a priority and, consequently, will oppose it.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, the hon. Chairman of the Board of Education said that the figure was £650,000, as in the estimates. But I have the estimates book here on page 37 and the item is number 17, `R.G.S. Sports Hall', and that is £500,000. Now I understand that there is an addition of £150,000, due to the addition of changing rooms. Now I find it very peculiar that changing rooms are suddenly required. Surely they were either required when the original scheme was put forward or they are not required now. I also find it very strange that a school of the size of Ramsey Grammar School has not got changing rooms and, furthermore, difficult to understand how changing rooms alone could cost the difference between £500,000 and £650,000 or a total of £150,000. I must point out that the loan charges on these changing rooms would, as Mr. Speaker has been saying, enable considerable work to be done on some of our country primary schools and in fact enable Patrick School to continue in operation, and therefore I, like Mr. Speaker, find it very difficult, on the information before us, to justify this, particularly why we are told nothing by the chairman of the change from £500,000 to £650,000.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, as much as I sympathise, as being a former school governor of the Dhoon School, and the facilities there are bad, I think it would be wrong for us to vote against this proposal, because I think the thing is what we do need is a commitment to more sports facilities throughout the Island. We hear great play about younsters vandalising and youngsters being thugs and having no enthusiasm. Well, let us provide the facilities because I am sure that when the hon. chairman replies as far this sports hall is concerned it is not just for the school; it will be for the whole community, and it is sometimes better to pay a little bit more and prevent further problems by giving the youngsters up in the North something to do with decent facilities, and I hope that every hon. member will support this. Even allowing for the fact that certain other areas as far as education, small country schools, are not getting a favourable response I think it would be quite wrong to vote against the proposal of having the sports hall at Ramsey, Your Excellency.
Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, I will be very brief. I would just like to point out to this hon. Court that the proposal put forward by the Board of Education today is really just part of an on-going policy by the board for the establishment of sports halls through the secondary schools on the Island. I would like to point out especially to the hon. Court that Ramsey, as seems to be usual, is the last town on the Island to get such a facility. Over the last few years we have seen one constructed in Peel;
Ramsey Grammar School — Provision of Sports Hall and Changing Rooms - Expenditure Approved T2300 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 we have had one in Douglas; we have had one recently completed in Castle Rushen. The north of the Island is the only part of the Island which is not served by this facility at the present time. I have to say that I am very sorry that the hon. Speaker sees it necessary to continue his campaign against the provision of sports facilities in the town. It is something which he has raised on a number of occasions since I have been in here and I am sure he will continue to raise it again. (Interruption) I feel very sorry that he has such an attitude towards this, bearing in mind that he will probably in all effect, if he was to get his way, be depriving his own grandchildren of the facilities which are available for the children of every other parent on the Island. I think that would be a very sad state to arrive at. Your Excellency, as has already been said, this facility will be used not only for the school children during school hours; it will be a community facility; it will be used widely outside of school hours and at weekends by local organisations. The only facility we have in the town at the moment is the ill-fated Plaza which is very much on its last legs and certainly —
Mr. Anderson: And the swimming pool, Alan.
Mr. Bell: Sports hall, sorry, I am talking about — has not fulfilled its original aims whatsoever and will be closed as soon as the grammar school facility is completed to enable the Board of Education to reap whatever financial benefit may be possible to be gained from these activities, which has to be to everyone's benefit in the long run. There is no question, as the hon. member for Middle has said, that the provision of such facilities undoubtedly eases the temptation for our younger people to drift into activities which society does not approve of, of vandalism, of drug-taking and all these other anti-social activities. If this hon. Court will give the support that is needed for this project today I am sure they will be giving the young people a great boost in the north of the Island in, I think, achieving in many respects their full potential which at the moment they are not in a position to develop. Your Excellency, I earnestly hope that that this Court will give this proposal their full support.
Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I think that hon. members of this hon. Court should be aware that this is not a matter which has suddenly been dreamt up yesterday. The problem of sports facilities in Ramsey and indoor recreation facilities has been a matter that has been before the people of Ramsey for many years. Indeed it is some 16 or 17 years ago that the need was first identified in the Ramsey Town Commissioners at the time and at that time the commissioners investigated a series of different options and different schemes that were available or that could be done. I remember particularly that Dr. Clifford Cowley, who was a commissioner at the time, was particularly active in this regard. One of the schemes that the commissioners looked at that time was the Plaza scheme. Ten years ago hon. members will recall that the question of sports and recreational facilities in Ramsey became the central issue of the general election, the central issue of the general election; virtually no other issue mattered at all in that election in Ramsey. It will be recalled that the people of Ramsey at that election adopted with
Ramsey Grammar School — Provision of Sports Hall and Changing Rooms - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2301
enthusiasm the project that there should be recreational facilities. It totally dominated the election and the result of the election was such, indeed, that the Ramsey Commissioners afterwards felt that they had absolutely no option, in view of the mandate from the people, but to proceed with the scheme that was then approved. It was most unfortunate that the proponent of the scheme ten years ago had not done his homework properly and had in fact picked up a scheme that had already been rejected by the commissioners which was the refurbishment of the Plaza cinema. Many of us at the time felt it would fail. Indeed a year later, after that election, my hon. colleague and I, both being on the Ramsey Commissioners at that time, formed with another commissioner a sub-committee to examine once again all the possible options that there were for sporting and recreational facilities in Ramsey. We examined every hall or every possible site that was capable of providing this facility. It was our conclusion then that the Plaza project was not right because the building had come to the end of its useful life and could not be adapted economically. It is unfortunate that the reality has shown that out judgement was correct. It was our opinion at that time nine years ago that the only solution to the problem was to co-operate with the Board of Education with a view to providing facilities at the Ramsey Grammar School which were capable of being used by the whole community. As a result we have this scheme before us today and I can only urge members to be aware that this issue has been debated in Ramsey for a decade and a half, that it has the total support of the people of Ramsey. The opponents to this scheme in Ramsey are negligible. Indeed I had to go and hunt them out. The support is total and overwhelming. I would remind you, as was stated earlier this morning, that Ramsey has 20 per cent. of the unemployed on the Island while it has only ten per cent. of the population. I would remind you that Ramsey has had, through the last few years, the thick end of this recession. It has suffered more than any other part of the Island and. I beg you to support this scheme for Ramsey's sake.
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, if it would help the Court, for a brief bit of background, to explain the discrepancy between the £500,000 in the Green Book and the £650,000 now before us, the original estimate in the Green Book was based on the Castle Rushen sports hall which cost £1/2 million, although that did not incorporate changing rooms. To be fair to the Board of Education, Treasury were informed as soon as they had an accurate estimate. The estimates and the tenders have been carefully looked at by the Treasury who are satisfied that the costings are now competitive. We would support this resolution going ahead at this stage because a delay to October would possibly mean that the project could not be got underway before adverse winter weather and, besides, the competitive tenders that we have received • would be by that time invalid by reason of the time expired, and therefore I think Ids is going to be value for money for the Island. I think it is going to be fair to Ramsey to undertake this work and I too would support this scheme.
Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, as a former Chairman of the Sports Council for en years I am delighted to see at last that Ramsey is to have a splendid new sports tall. (Members: Hear, hear.) I am absolutely delighted that the Board of Education
Ramsey Grammar School — Provision of Sports Hall and Changing Rooms - Expenditure Approved T2302 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 over the past few years have provided these sporting facilities in Douglas, Peel, Castletown and now in Ramsey. 1 am surprised that Mr. Speaker, for example, is opposing this because I can see it as a splendid means of —
Mr. Delaney: Getting re-elected! (Laughter)
Mr. Irving: — sporting facilities, not only for the pupils in Ramsey but also for the people of the town and, as for the hon. member for Glenfaba who suggests the money ought to be spent in Patrick School instead, I would have thought the same argument would apply to the running track which he mentioned this morning.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Delaney: Running Track for Ramsey!
Mr. Irving: Having mentioned the words 'running track', sir — and this is in relation to the Board of Education — I believe that one of the top priorities on this island is the provision of an all-weather running track (Members: Hear, hear.) and I know other people are going to say 'But what about this school, this hospital?' and various other things. I would never presume to tell the Tourist Board how they should operate nowadays.
Dr. Mann Everybody else does!
Mr. Delaney: Somebody should!.
Mr. Irving: Everybody else may; everybody else did to me when I was there.
Dr. Mann: You did not take any notice!
Mr. Irving: I knew over 60,000 experts in tourism who have now become experts in steam ship companies and running harbours. (Laughter) But in 1955 there was a commission on the tourist industry and it suggested that the Isle of Man should become an island of sport. It has taken us 29/30 years —
Mr. Cringle: We did that last year, though, did we not?
Mr. Irving: — 31 years to get round to it so that last year we had 'Year of Sport'. I believe it was a great success (Mr. Cringle: Hear, hear.) and I believe that we need an outdoor all-weather track, not just for the young people of the Island, not just for the people who run on the Island but to attract tourists here. It is no good saying `We are going to change the course of tourism. We are going to appeal to different people. We are going to have different advertisements' if we do not alter the attractions of the Island and therefore I hope, sir, that my hon. colleague here, as Chairman of the Board of Education, though I know he will not devote large sums of money from his vote to provide an all-weather running track, I hope the Board of Education in the great interest they show in young people in sporting
Ramsey Grammar School — Provision of Sports Hall and Changing Rooms - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2303 activities, I hope they will support what is bound to come up in this Court before very long and say 'We, the Board of Education are behind this for the young people of the Isle of Man' and I think this is splendid, to see this sports hall coming along in Ramsey.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I congratulate and welcome my hon. friend, the member for West Douglas, as a candidate for East Douglas, which the speech obviously indicated to me. The situation is irrelevant, because what we are talking about is a facility that is well overdue for Ramsey and for the children in Ramsey and the people of Ramsey, and what it has got to do with running tracks is beyond me, because the whole policy of the running track was thrown out by this same hon. Court and so was the investigation into unemployment —
Mr. Irving: Who cares?
Mr. Delaney: — the first resolution we ever faced. So at this late stage to start talking about irrelevancies, Your Excellency, is a pointless exercise.
Mr. Irving: You do it nearly every time we are here so why should not I? (Laughter)
Mr. Delaney: Yes, but The difference is I eventually, as you will find later on in the Agenda, achieve my object, even if it takes me eight years, sir, whereas you do not achieve it; you just keep talking about it. Your Excellency, I think the members who vote against it — and I appeal to the Speaker not to vote against it; we take his point, what he said — I think it is necessary, what the resolution says here. It is well overdue and I wish the people in Ramsey and certainly the members for Ramsey who have fought for this item and other items, I think they deserve it. I think there is a justice in it and I think the people of Ramsey will appreciate the service we are trying to operate, even from their own money, which is taxes.
The Governor: The chairman to reply.
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, when we talk about priorities, sir, I would suggest that sports halls come into the same category as museum extensions. It is difficult to allocate them in their proper priority, but we have got our priorities right because we have concentrated on getting the teaching facilities at Ramsey Grammar School in being before we have gone for the sports hall. Leisure activities, with rising unemployment, are going to take more and more of our resources for the future and we had better realise that. Now, if it was a question of giving Ramsey what they deserve, and we had to rely on the Ramsey Town Commissioners, they would not be getting a sports hall from the Board of Education, because I reckon that the Ramsey Commissioners not only did the youth of this Island a bad turn but the population of Ramsey a bad turn when they reneged on the joint scheme that we had prepared for a sports
Ramsey Grammar School — Provision of Sports Hall and Changing Rooms - Expenditure Approved T2304 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 hall to suit the needs of the area. But, as I say, I can put things like that behind me — on occasions (Laughter and interruptions) and this is one of those occasions. I believe the need for this sports hall should be obvious to everybody. The North have been deprived, not through the efforts of the Board of Education, but through the activities of their own representatives. We are hoping to correct this omission now.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Board of Education at item 13. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
POLICE HEADQUARTERS - NEW GARAGE BLOCK/VEHICLE WORKSHOP - EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 14, Police Headquarters. I call upon the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board to move, and could we ask for the Local Government Board members to return if they wish.
Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald approves of the Home Affairs Board incurring expenditure of a sum not exceeding £42,000 in respect of the building of a new garage block/ vehicle workshop at Police Headquarters, Glencrutchery Road, Douglas.
The purpose of the resolution is to request the release of funds allocated in the current year's Budget to enable a new garage block and vehicle workshop to be built at the Police Headquarters. The building will comprise a single-storey block with floor area approximately 143 square metres, it will be of traditional build, traditional cavity wall, reinforced concrete raft foundations and tiled roof. Six local building firms applied to be included on a select tender list. All were invited to tender. Five of them did so. The lowest tender was from J.T. Skillicorn Ltd. of Onchan in the sum of £39,808.70, and the balance of £2,191.30 is required for the purchase of equipment. Your Excellency, my board considers it is important that as many of our vehicles as possible are well maintained and kept under cover in a proper and reasonable garage and workshop, particularly those more expensive vehicles such as the incident vehicle, major incident vehicle, and I beg to move item 14 on the Agenda, sir.
Mr. Ward: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I have a query on this particular item, which is very much akin to the one I raised on the Highway Board estimate earlier. A garage I can understand. A vehicle workshop is a different kettle of fish. A vehicle
Police Headquarters — New Garage Block/Vehicle Workshop - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2305 workshop implies mechanics; it implies a set-up there which is going to service the police fleet. Now, as we envisage a pattern of evolution in relation to the bringing together of the Island's services for all elements of Government, I cannot readily accept a police set-up there which is going to service vehicles. I would have thought this could have been done in a broader pattern of servicing which would relate to vehicles pertaining to all departments, that if we are going to have a garage facility we should have one which is covering the needs of Government, as opposed to segments, because with segments we are going to have terrific waste and, as we all subscribe to this idea of co-ordination and bringing together, I find that boards are continuing to do their own thing and to insert their own wishes into their estimates in this way, and I cannot help but believe that this is yet another example — and I hope to be corrected by the hon. chairman — of a set-up being created which will involve mechanical operations there, involve an increase in personnel required by the board, and at the same time as we are trying to consolidate this pattern and bring it all together in a more effective form.
Mr. Morrey: Your Excellency, once again Mr. Speaker has stolen my thunder. This year, of course, we have had a moratorium on the purchase of new vehicles. So I wonder whether the Home Affairs Board did not say 'Well, we cannot buy the vehicles but we might as well buy the garage to put them in', and again I would just like to say, is this a last-minute rush before it is too late? I just want to get up again to remind all boards, not just the Home Affairs Board, that are concerned about the duplication of facilities. Perhaps they do have a case in this, with their special vehicles et cetera, but I sometimes just get the hint it might be an excuse.
Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I am not opposed in any shape or form against the garage, but what I would like to ask the hon. chairman is, when I served on the Police Board a few years ago I seem to recall that we had quite a good workshop already at the police station and I would like to know what has happened to that workshop, repair workshop.
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward: Your Excellency, in support of my chairman, I think it is only valid to point out one or two things. In reply to Mr. Morrey first, this is certainly no last-minute sort of operation. It has been in being for several years and of course, whether the Court is aware of it or not — and I am sure they must be because it has been before this Court on several occasions at Budget time — we have a mechanic and we have a workshop, and of course it was a case, a conscious decision that the Police Board of that time made several years ago because we thought that it was a wise thing to do. We had the facilities, as the hon. member for Council has said, we had what could amount to a workshop; we had storage for spares and of course, like everything else, the value of having a mechanic to do quick repairs and the valuable part of a quick turn-round for our vehicles was sought at that time and went into very deeply, and I think that we convinced the Treasury of the time that it was a viable thing and I think — I am quite true and I am sure my chairman will correct me if I am wrong — that it has proved viable from that point
Police Headquarters — New Garage Block/Vehicle Workshop - Expenditure Approved T2306 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 of view. Now when we come to this particular building we have at least three very expensive emergency vehicles which are more or less not capable of being housed in any accommodation that we have at the moment, and we have felt very strongly that these very valuable vehicles should be, at the very least, under cover a greater majority of the time that they are not in use, and that was the way that the thinking was done. Now sadly, as I say, as far as the mechanic is concerned, and I do not want to get into the realms of what Mr. Speaker said, with this pool that we have been talking about ever since I have come into this House, and I think quite frankly — I do not know whether any other members in this House would agree with me — but, allright, it would be an El Dorado which would be marvellous to have, a pool/maintenance place for all the vehicles concerned in Government. But quite frankly it does not work from a practical point of view, and I am sure the Chairman of the Highway Board and other people would tell this and will ever in the future. But there is a case in most cases, whether we are departments or whether we are boards, where priorities have got to count, and if you have a situation where you have one pool of both workshop and maintenance for all the vehicles that are concerned in everything to do with the Government concerns I can see an awful lot of problems, practical problems from priority points of view and everything that will crop up. But, to keep to the resolution in front of us, Mr. Callin is quite right; we have a workshop which we have adapted and which we use, and the value of this building would be that we would hope — and this would not interfere with the purpose of the building as a garage — but on occasions it would facilitate the mechanic to make that job, from a practical point of view, much easier, if that particular building could be used for repairs at certain times during the jobs. I can only say that from the point of view of the police the value of having their own mechanic has proved very worthwhile. We have tried drastically over the last four or five years. First of all we have tried to get, for the sake of continuity, we have tried to interest the Finance Board in giving us the money to pay for a full- time apprentice, where we could provide some continuity because we have the one mechanic, and we really do believe that alongside of that mechanic we should eventually either have a second one to at least keep the flett floating. The mechanic does a damn good job. We were excellent in the choice of the man that we took. He does a good job and of course the valuable thing is that in many cases we have a quick turn-round that we would not have had in private enterprise.
The Governor: I call on the chairman to reply.
Mr. Cringle: Thank you, Your Excellency. Very briefly, to Mr. Speaker — the Home Affairs Board will actually remain the same after the re-organisation, and I take his point about the re-organisation and centralisation of Government should really look long term at all its facilities. But my hon. colleague Mr. Ward has already, I think, pointed out, and I think possibly Mr. Speaker was a little bit unsure of this, but in 1983, sir, the Home Affairs Board appointed its first mechanic. So in fact the workshop which had been provided, as witnessed by the hon. member for Council, Mr. Callin, who commented when he was Chairman of the Police Board,
Police Headquarters — New Garage Block/Vehicle Workshop - Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2307
the workshop which was provided when the building was built and a new Police Headquarters was built came into its own with the provision of a mechanic in 1983 and without any doubt at all there has been a considerable saving to the Home Affairs Board as a result of that mechanic being employed. He has been assisted, more recently in the last year or two, by a trainee, which is giving the opportunity of an apprenticeship, particularly under the Youth Vocational Training Scheme. So in fact again Government has helped and assisted at that end. Currently I think it is fair to point out that the police are operating, I think, some 47 vehicles and a study by an audit commission in the United Kingdom for improving fleet management in local government, actually they came forward and have made a recommendation that there should be one mechanic for every 15-20 vehicles. So if we were to follow that basis we would actually have three mechanics. Now I think that would probably be gilding the lily far too much, but there is no question at all that, as far as our fleet is concerned, as far as the fleet and the police vehicles are concerned, there has been a considerable saving in relation to the servicing and keeping the fleet on the road. I think the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Morrey, was making rather the similar suggestion, and I think I have covered the question about the workshop, which Mr. Callin raised, but I would point out to Mr. Catlin that the board, whilst acknowledging that there are workshop facilities there, there is a need for additional garage and improved workshop facilities and, frankly, it is felt logical and proper that when you are doing it you might as well do the job so that it will cover the whole of the fleet and currently there is difficulty in even getting the major incident vehicle into the current workshop because of the sheer lintel height, they being built as ordinary normal garages. So, Your Excellency, I think there is a strong case for this provision at the Police Headquarters. It has been in and out of the Home Affairs Board's estimates for certainly as long as I have been Chairman of the Home Affairs Board and I am only pleased to be able this afternoon, sir, to formally move item 14.
The Governor: Hon. members, the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board, item 14. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against, say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
DOUGLAS BAY SEWER OUTFALL - PRELIMINARY SURVEY AND INVESTIGATIVE WORK - EXPENDITURE APPROVED
• The Governor: Item 15, Douglas Bay Sewer Outfall. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald authorises the Local Government Board to engage consultants and incur expenditure not exceeding £50, 000 on phase I of survey and investigative work as a preliminary to a scheme for improving sewage
Douglas Bay Sewer Outfall — Preliminary Survey and Investigative Work - Expenditure Approved T2308 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
disposal arrangements in the Douglas Bay area.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
REFURBISHMENT OF DWELLINGS, JANET'S CORNER, CASTLETOWN - EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 16, Refurbishment of Dwellings, Janet's Corner, Castletown. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That Tynwald approves of the Local Government Board refurbishing 14 dwellings at Janet's Corner, Castletown, at a cost not exceeding £110,500 as part of the board's continuing programme of modernising and improving its housing stock.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MODERNISATION SCHEME 1985 - AMENDMENT OF SCHEME APPROVED
The Governor: Item 17, Residential Property Modernisation. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
Whereas —
(1) At a sitting of Tynwald on 17th December 1985 the Residential Property Modernisation Scheme 1985 was approved; and (2) the Local Government Board has resolved that the scheme be amended in the following terms —
For the interpretation of 'residential premises' on page 1 of the scheme substitute:
(a) any building used wholly or mainly as a domestic dwelling and includes premises containing more than one dwelling, or (b) any tourist premises registered under the Tourist (General) Regulations
Refurbishment of Dwellings, Janet's Corner, Castletown — Expenditure Approved Residential Property Modernisation Scheme 1985 - Amendment of Scheme Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2309
1977 as containing not more than 6 bedrooms provided for the accommodation of tourists.
Be it Resolved that the Residential Property Modernisation Scheme 1985 be amended and the same is hereby approved.
Mr. Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, bearing in mind that this is to do with the residential property modernisation, I would like to ask the Chairman of the Local Government Board if he recollects that, I think it was two years ago, they started carrying out a survey of all the residential property in the Island and have the results of that survey been collated and has a report been in the hands of the Local Government Board? And as I see the hon. chairman nodding his head do I take it that it has and, if it has, when will he be presenting that report to Tynwald, and can he give any indication, in advance of presenting that report to Tynwald, of the state of residential property in the Island?
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? I call on the chairman to reply.
Mr. Walker: Yes, Your Excellency, as far as the housing report is concerned the board have had a copy of that report and we have had a preliminary meeting. I would just say that the report was a report to the board and not to Tynwald and it, I think, requires quite a lot more consideration by the board until we are ready to present it to Tynwald with some recommendations as to how the housing stock in the Isle of Man can be produced. But the answer, Your Excellency, is yes, the report has been received.
Mr. Cannon: Can I have a point of clarification? Can I have his assurance that the report, in due course, will be presented to Tynwald?
Mr. Walker: The board will have to consider it, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Local Government Board at item 17. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. And as a point of education I must remind the hon. member for Michael that there is no such thing as a point of clarification.
PROCEDURAL
The Governor: Now, hon. members, item 18 I propose we delay until tomorrow morning because the chairman of that committee is, of course, still fighting with the Minister for Aviation in London.
Procedural T2310 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' EXPENSES ACT 1975 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: If you are agreed, we will go on to item 19, Payment of Members' Expenses Act. I call upon the Chairman of Executive Council.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 1986, made by the Governor in Council on 18th June 1986, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' EXPENSES (INSURANCE AUTHORITY) ORDER 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 20, Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975. I call upon the Chairman of Executive Council.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Payment of Members' Expenses (Insurance Authority) Order 1986, made by the Governor in Council on 20th June 1986, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
FISHING VESSELS (TEMPORARY SUPPORT) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 21, Fishing Vessels. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Fishing Vessels (Temporary Support) (Amendment) Scheme 1986, made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, be and the same is hereby approved.
Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 1986 — Approved Payment of Members' Expenses (Insurance Authority) Order 1986 — Approved Fishing Vessels (Temporary Support) (Amendment) Scheme 1986 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2311
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
ISLE OF MAN POLICE (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 22, Police Acts 1962 to 1982. I call upon the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board.
Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Isle of Man Police (Amendment) Regulations 1986, made by the Home Affairs Board on 13th June 1986 in terms of Section 16 of the Police (Isle of Man) Act 1962, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL RESOURCES) REGULATIONS 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 23, Legal Aid Act 1986. I call upon H.M. Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Legal Aid (Financial Resources) Regulations 1986, made by the Legal Aid Committee on 23rd June 1986 pursuant to Sections 3, 4, 12 and 16 of the Legal Aid Act 1986, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
LEGAL AID (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 24, Legal Aid Act 1986. I call upon H.M. Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
Isle of Man Police (Amendment) Regulations 1986 — Approved Legal Aid (Financial Resources) Regulations 1986 — Approved Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1986 — Approved T2312 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
That the Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1986, made by the Legal Aid Committee on 23rd June 1986 pursuant to Sections 2, 6, 16 and 23(4) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Legal Aid Act 1986, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
LEGAL AID (MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 25, Legal Aid Act 1986. I call upon H.M. Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Legal Aid (Matrimonial Proceedings) Regulations 1986, made by the Legal Aid Committee on 23rd June 1986 pursuant to Sections 2 and 16 of, and paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to, the Legal Aid Act 1986, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 26, Legal Aid Act 1986. I call upon H.M. Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General: Your excellency, I beg to move:
That the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1986, made by the Legal Aid Committee on 23rd June 1986 pursuant to Sections 7 to 12 and 16 of the Legal Aid Act 1986, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
RULES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (INSTALMENT ORDERS ETC.) 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 27, Isle of Man Judicature Act 1883. I call upon H.M.
Legal Aid (Matrimonial Proceedings) Regulations 1986 — Approved Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1986 — Approved Rules of the High Court of Justice (Instalment Orders Etc.) 1986 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T23I3
Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Rules of the High Court of Justice (Instalment Orders etc.) 1986, made by Their Honours the Deemsters on 12th June 1986 pursuant to Section 35 of the Isle of Man Judicature Act 1883, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) RULES 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 28, Judicature (Matrimonial Causes) Act 1976. I call upon H.M. Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 1986, made by Their Honours the First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls and the Second Deemster on 2nd June 1986, be and the same are hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT 1978 (DESIGNATION OF RECIPROCATING COUNTRIES) ORDER 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 29, Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act. I call upon the Chairman of Executive Council.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1978 (Designation of Reciprocating Countries) Order 1986, made on 18th June 1986 by His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, acting on the advice and with the concurrence of Executive Council, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 1986 — Approved Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1978 (Designation of Reciprocating Countries) Order 1986 — Approved T2314 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
It was agreed.
FUNCTIONS OF TRAFFIC WARDENS ORDER 1986 — MOTION DEFEATED
The Governor: Item 30, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1985. I call on the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board to move.
Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, 1 beg to move:
That the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986, made by the Home Affairs Board on 13th June 1986 under the provisions of Section 33(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1985, be and the same is hereby approved.
1 think this is certainly something which members may very well want to make their own comments on, so as far as I am concerned I do not propose to take too long over presenting the case, simply to say that in relation to the item on the Agenda Section 33(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, which is an Act that only recently the House of Keys and Legislative Council passed; in fact it is an Act of 1985, empowers the Home Affairs Board to appoint persons to 'discharge, in aid of the police, functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of, or the enforcement of the law relating to, traffic;' and Section 33(2) of the Act states that such persons shall be known as 'traffic wardens', and Section 33(3) lays down that traffic wardens shall not be employed to discharge functions other than those prescribed as appropriate for the purpose by order of the Home Affairs board, and that an order under that particular section shall not have effect unless it is approved by Tynwald. Now the Home Affairs Board has made such an order, that order being under Section 33(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, and it is the approval of that order which I now seek. I think hon. members are very well aware that over a considerable period of time there has been comment made as to the parking and to the traffic within Douglas, as to whether or not we have proper traffic management and control, and it is as a result, I would suggest, of looking for proper management and control that the House of Keys in 1984/85, when dealing with the road traffic legislation — and we dealt with this particular section of that legislation at the time knowingly - were of a mind that at least the provision should be made within the Act that if we required proper management to come forward it could be done. Now I am of the opinion, quite forcibly, Your Excellency, that if you require something to be done about the traffic situation in Douglas, well then you should be prepared to come forward with a scheme which will properly manage the traffic flow and, particularly, alleviate the difficulties in the commercial areas of Douglas, which people are currently finding when they wish to either go shopping or to do their business, and it is for that purpose that I see a whole package coming together, a whole package of the Highway Board coming forward in conjunction with the Douglas Corporation, and I would tell this hon. Court that this first started in Douglas Corporation over ten years ago, of a traffic management system within the central areas of Douglas, that that management system should come forward
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated
L TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2315 which will introduce additional legal car parking spaces, that at the same time we should be prepared, as a Government level, to re-organise additional off-street car parking areas to take up any surplus, and bring the whole thing together by proper enforcement and it is the proper enforcement, of such a scheme and of parking within Douglas which brings me immediately straight back to Section 33 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act and the appointment of traffic wardens. I personally find it ridiculous — I do not mind whether you call them wardens or whatever, although we did within the Act call them wardens — I find it ridiculous that we should even countenance the employment of expensive policemen to walk round town deliberately moving on motor cars or checking to see if someone has outstayed a limited stay parking area. I think that would be a misuse of Government's resources. At the same time I believe that there is a crying need for the enforcement, the proper enforcement of those areas within town and particularly those areas close to junctions, where we all know bad parking is taking place. Equally, if I look at that job being enforced by policemen, I would say to myself instantly, as also being responsible for the management, or not actually directly of the management but for the police force, to Tynwald Court as Chairman of the Home Affairs Board, I would say there would be nothing worse, possibly, for the public relations of the Island police force if they were seen to be nothing more than 'traffic wardens' continually going round and being seen to hound the motorist. So having painted that scene, I would simply say to this hon. Court that you have two choices in front of you today. You are either prepared to accept that there is a requirement for the enforcement, the proper enforcement of legal car parking spaces within Douglas, which will enable those who wish to attend the commercial districts of Douglas, either as shoppers or in the business sector, much easier than what they currently can do, or you are prepared to wipe your hands of it and say `Well, it is in a mess. There is nothing we can do about it and let us forget it', because in this instance, Your Excellency, I would say to this hon. Court there is no halfway measure, and if this hon. Court had the feeling that the halfway measure is that Government should throw at it a lot of money in relation to building a new multi- storey car park, which I accept may very well in the long term be necessary, I would say to this hon. Court that, even if you had one provided magically tomorrow night, if you do not enforce the on-street legal car parking properly the general motorist would not use the additional car parking facilities. So enforcement is the crunch and we have to accept whether or not you want the motorist to be enforced to park properly in the required proper areas. At the present time I am aware that within Douglas there have been double yellow lines which have been painted, which in the past have never had the proper orders to make them enforceable in law. Now that sort of situation, it is just that sort of situation which has brought the whole, I would suggest, of the parking within Douglas into disrepute and there is a crying need for the enforcement of proper parking areas, and that requires the whole thing to be brought in as a package. This is merely the first step in the enforcement procedure and I beg to move Item 30 on the Agenda, sir.
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir.
Mr. Martin: Your Excellency, as a member of the Home Affairs Board I have
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2316 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 made quite clear to my chairman and board members the opposition that I have against the introduction of traffic wardens. In a unique and beautiful Island such as ours it is little wonder that the Tourist Board advertises that it is our differences that make the difference. One of these differences, of course, is that we have a more relaxed attitude towards our motoring visitor and our local motorist alike. If we, or Douglas Corporation, introduce traffic wardens to persecute and intimidate the motorist because we have failed to supply adequate parking space, then we are as guilty of the offence of illegal parking as any one who has no option but to park on the endless and unlimited yellow lines that we have created. The answer to parking does not lie in traffic wardens or one-way street systems. (Mr. Duggan: Hear, hear.) It lies in the provision of ample legal parking space. Traffic wardens will, if introduced, clear all the area of cars parked on yellow lines, lines that we have created. One-way street systems will move motorists in whatever direction you want to push them. Parking meters, which is the next step, and Pay and Display', which has already been introduced, are all designed as a means of making Douglas shopping area a ghost area. It will, I am sure, drive all the shoppers out of Douglas and leave the town centre for Government to develop more of its Markwell Houses and office blocks.
Mr. Brown: Shame!
Mr. Martin: The Chamber of Trade are opposed to traffic wardens because its members, who are among the biggest ratepayers on this Island, can see that, by their introduction, shopping in Douglas will become a thing of the past. Hon. members, the way forward is providing more and sufficient parking spaces, and do not be fooled by the introduction of a one-way street system creating the required amount of parking spaces because it will not. This order, if passed today, will allow the introduction of traffic wardens. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Board will say that this will mean two or three persons supplemented by the police force. The Chief Constable has said that in order to carry out the job by traffic wardens alone it would require eight persons as traffic wardens. Hon. members, if you allow the introduction of two or three wardens today it will not be long before there are eight wardens. Then the attention can be turned to other areas of our Island which will be taken over by them. Hon. members, I ask you to vote against this order in the hope that a more sensible solution, such as adequate parking facilities, will be provided. Thank you, Your Excellency.
Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, I am totally opposed to this order before us today. I have had umpteen letters from different business people in the town. I have held two or three public meetings recently; one I invited Mr. Cringle, but admittedly it was not very well attended, but —
Mr. Cringle: There were not many at that! (Laughter)
Mr. Duggan: — we must consider that the people that were there were business people, Mr. Cringle, and one man alone was representing nearly 300 people because he was from the Chamber of Trade and Commerce. I think wardens, like the hon.
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2317 member for East Douglas, Mr. Martin, has said, would be definitely detrimental to the heavily rated people of Douglas, especially the shopkeepers.
Mr. Brown: They are not heavily rated.
Mr. Duggan: They are extra heavily rated in my opinion.
Mr. Brown: Not at all.
Mr. Duggan: Another point, Your Excellency — I went recently to the Douglas Town Council solely to get their view on traffic wardens and it was more or less unanimous that the Douglas Town Council were opposed to traffic wardens. When I was a councillor a number of years ago, when we were asking for Government support for our roads et cetera, I got up at one Council meeting and stated 'The more Government support we ask for, the more they want to do what they want with our roads in Douglas'. I said you will have someone from out in the sticks, like Mr. Cringle is doing now, (Laughter) telling us what to do with our roads. It has all come true. Here is Mr. Cringle, and Mr. Quirk is another, with his one-way systems, telling .us in Douglas what to do with our roads.
Mr. Brown: That is what we were elected for. (Interruptions)
Mr. Duggan: The Council do not want traffic wardens, Your Excellency. The Council does not want this one-way system either and the people of Douglas do not want the one-way system either, because they both go together, to the detriment of the people in Douglas. I have letters from even Manx Airlines here, as well as my constituents, Central Motors; it is on-going, the amount of letters, an ex-inspector of the police and the Chamber of Trade and Commerce and people from all over the place in Douglas. I think wardens will definitely be more than detrimental to the tourist trade, as Mr. Martin has pointed out. I asked Mr. Cringle at the public meeting — and I am still waiting for an answer — what is he going to do with the wardens in T.T. Week? He may be going to send them on holiday; I do not know.
Mr. Cringle: You are joking.
Mr. Duggan: You are joking, puting this resolution down, this order down. Anyway, I am totally against traffic wardens. I have been against them from the on-set. I think, really speaking, you have got to get your parking in order first, get your parking facilities, do not put the cart before the horse, and then possibly get your wardens then, but if you get proper parking facilities you should not need wardens. I was recently in Blackpool for a few days and I left my car on double lines because it is a bit difficult where to park over there too; (Laughter) it is a tourist town, but I was very worried, actually, because there were traffic wardens parading up and down (Laughter) and I remember one day —
Mr. Brown: Your are helping his case! Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2318 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Mr. Duggan: — I saw a chap in uniform, there was a chap in uniform approaching my car and I said to the wife 'I better get back there quick because I could get booked; I have been there two hours' (Laughter) and it was a Salvation officer, a Salvation Army Officer. (Laughter) It just shows how people are on pins, you cannot relax with these wardens, because they are generally self-opinionated characters and they can be more like a Hitler sort of character, and I think they are wrong; I am totally against them, and I do not want them in Douglas, especially Douglas because they will only be coming in Douglas and, there again, you will get Mr. Cringle who is out in the sticks, (Laughter) he is okay in Port Erin because they are not going to have them in Port Erin; it would chase our people who shop in Douglas, possibly, out of town. So let Mr. Cringle have them in Port Erin to try them out.
Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, may I respectfully suggest that what is required in my opinion is a certain amount of de-regulation and the political will to find a solution to the car parking problem. There are already far too many double yellow lines, in particular throughout Douglas, and the introduction of traffic wardens will not improve this situation one iota. With fewer double yellow lines confined only to the areas where there is a definite need for them and more short-term parking on the streets, regulated of course, I am convinced that our police force could quite adequately enforce the law as part of their foot patrol. There are any amount of areas that could be used for parking, in the vicinity of Lord Street, for example, and I look forward to the members of the Planning Committee of the Local Government Board in whose hands it has now been placed, we had a very large committee all looking at the car parking situation, made up of various Boards of Tynwald, and it has now been left with the Planning Committee of the Local Government Board, and I look forward to them coming to Tynwald, sooner rather than later, to inform the Court of the way they see this problem being solved. It has gone on far too long, hon. members, and I would reiterate that I feel the introduction of traffic wardens will not improve the situation one iota, and urge members to reject this order.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I find myself somewhat confused, now that the hon. member Mr. Duggan, who has actually made a good case why we should have traffic wardens —
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duggan: You can have them in Castletown!
Mr. Brown: — but if it means that they are watching where they park that is really proving a point. But, seriously, can I say that I to some degree take a little bit of exception to the tone that the mover actually put on why we should support this resolution before us, and in fact he was indicating quite strongly that once again the Keys had made its mind to put in legislation and, coming now to the twelfth hour, we were starting to back out.
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2319
Mr. Delaney: That is it. That is what he said.
Mr. Brown: But let us clear the decks on that one, Mr. Speaker, because the Keys are very used to having that accusation thrown at us and it being covered and the public not understanding the situation. But I am sure the hon. Members of the House of Keys, who were very clear, if you read Hansard, as to why they were wanting it to be in the legislation but made it extremely clear to the then mover of the Bill, Mr. Cringle, that while they would put it in the Bill, because of the time it would take to re-enact it at a later date, there was no way the House of Keys would pass an order to introduce traffic wardens until, and I emphasise, until the facility for adequate parking was provided, and that included the provision of a multi-storey car park. Now the chairman of the board said that this is the first stop and I question that very much. This should not be the first stop. The first stop is providing the car parking facilities the public require (A Member: Hear, hear.) and along with that you introduce, if you need them, traffic wardens, and it was interesting to note that you said 'enforcement without the facilities'. You cannot have enforcement without those facilities. Where are you going to push people to? And the hon. member Mr. Duggan made that clear and I quite accept that you will force people out of town, and we have to accept Douglas N the main shopping centre of the Island, although of course there are some excellent shopping centres outside Douglas. But seriously, Your Excellency, I believe that this order that has been put in front of us will again project an image outside of a House of Keys that cannot make its mind up, and that is not true. I am sure the House of Keys will be as firm as ever that they do not want traffic wardens yet. The actual permitting of the legislation to be put into the Bill went without a division, because we all understood why it had to be put into the Bill, and I shall be opposing the introduction of traffic wardens at this stage. I do not believe, even with the pleas from the chairman, that he anything like made a case for the introduction at this stage of traffic wardens and, quite honestly, we will persecute the car driver. They will have to come at some time, or whatever name you call them is immaterial, but enforcement will have to come at some time because it will actually help the shopkeepers by keeping the traffic moving nearer the shops, but not until you have got somewhere for the people who are parking there now long term to actually go to long term and when you have got Chester Street, which we have a problem with, where it does not fill up, it is because even if you were to enforce it you could not get all the cars in there anyway. We know the requirement of how many car parking spaces we require Douglas. I say we should wait for the introduction of traffic wardens until we actually get to the stage where we can provide the car parking facilities that the Isle of Man requires for everyday use within the town of Douglas, and I hope members will oppose it (Members: Hear, hear.) and I hope it will be covered that the reason why is not because we have chickened out but because it is what we said in the Keys in the first place.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, to back up the arguments put forward by the hon.
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2320 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 member for Castletown, I too have been reading Hansard — and a different place to the hon. member for Castletown, I believe — and the report of the committee on the Road Traffic Regulations Bill, the hon. member for Rushen stated, in replying to the debate, 'My hon. colleague Mr. Ward — I will go back to him and I want to give hon. members for Douglas the categoric assurance this is enabling legislation and as far as I am concerned, and I am sure as far as the Home Affairs Board is concerned, we have absolutely no intention of starting traffic wardens without looking at a few basic principles'. Those basic principles are — I know this is already taking place — that car parking in Douglas should be looked at. Okay it has been looked at but nothing has been done; okay, you have looked at it. The Local Government Board are doing that with the Town Council. Then you go on to an argument about zoned areas, which the hon. member has mentioned again today. Following the zoned areas, equally important in this particular piece of legislation, relative to the report, is the possibility of introducing fixed penalties. I genuinely believe that it is past time that we had this in the law of the Isle of Man, which introduces fixed penalties, that is, if somebody has committed an offence 'That is it, boys; pay your penalty, end of story'. Part and parcel of one thing. So we look at car parks, zone the areas, fixed penalty system. (Interruption) You have looked at them, yes. What have you done? What has Tynwald done? It horrifies me, a one-way system for Douglas which will prove, I am absolutely certain, to bring chaos to Victoria Street. (Members: Hear, hear.) That is what we have done and now we are saying introduce traffic wardens — totally wrong. Do it the other way round. You have not got the car parking facilities yet, okay, but you can introduce fixed penalties and we will do, no doubt. Fixed penalties can then be used, and I remember the hon. member giving me an assurance that they will introduce fixed penalties first and then traffic wardens. See if the police can enforce the legislation with fixed penalties. As far as the policemen are concerned they will be quite happy to have traffic wardens, I am sure, because the one way to make an enemy in the public of the Isle of Man is to book them for parking. Lock them up for stealing, no problem at all, but if you book them for parking you have got an enemy for life. So the police will be glad to be rid of the duty of enforcing the legislation regarding traffic offences as regarding parking. But the hon. member has said today 'highly paid policemen as opposed to traffic wardens'. That is not the argument. It is not going to be one or the other. A policeman on day duty has got a job to do and there are certain times on day duty when he can put a few tickets on cars. So I would really ask him, let the police try to enforce the parking regulations with fixed penalties. If that fails I am quite prepared to then look at traffic wardens but, at the moment, no way.
Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I do not intend to say very much. I support the introduction of traffic wardens, although I am bound to say I wish you would call them something other than traffic wardens; it is a very boring —
Mr. Delaney: Salvation Army Officers! (Laughter)
Mr. Cain: Even that would do better.
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2321
Mr. Morrey: Traffic detectives!
Mr. Cain: I do not mind what you call them but it is a very boring English title and something more inspired would be . . . and perhaps, you know, please do not put them in the uniform that they have over there; that is boring too. Why do you not give them pink uniforms or something? At least make it a little more cheerful. But two comments have been made which have brought me to my feet. The first one is that these double yellow lines keep growing, and of course there is a reason why they keep growing and that is the sheer desperation of local authorities trying to keep the roads clear. In fact double yellow lines have reached the point where I can recall in Ramsey a few years ago we had a new car park and we noticed that nobody was parking in the new car park at all because it was all of ten yards away from the shops. So in desperation we were thinking of painting double yellow lines around the car park, to indicate that that was where they could park. (Laughter) We nearly did it too. The fact is, you see, that people in the Isle of Man have a marvellous attitude to the car. Manx people refuse to pay for parking, point blank, even if it is only 10p. They will park anywhere rather than pay 10p. I have seen people walk half a mile to avoid paying 10p. People in Ramsey used to park all over the middle of the town to avoid paying 10p in the Station car park, absolutely adjacent to the shop they were trying to get to. Equally, people will not walk anywhere. If you can drive into the shop people will drive into the shop. I think that is a fact. Now if you want proof of this all you have to do is to go and look at Finch Road on an average morning. You will find two double yellow lines on both sides of the road. You will find cars parked on the double yellow lines, cars parked on the pavement, cars obstructing the road, cars obstructing the car parks and Chester Street Car Park is empty. It is empty.
Mr. Brown: Half empty.
Mr. Cain: I am sorry, sir, you go and look; it is empty. You will find cars parked outside the entrance to the car park, double parked outside the entrance to the car park, while the car park is empty. What we are talking about is not police harassment. What we are talking about is trying to get a little bit of common sense into the problems of car parking in this town and all we seem to be doing at the moment is going a round and round in circles producing crazy one-way systems that are only going to compound the problem, (Mr. Duggan: Hear, hear.) because Finch Road used to be two-way; then you did not get so much car parking. Now it is one-way so everybody treats it as a car park, so the result is it gets totally clogged. No, to be quite honest, some sort of system along these lines is the only intelligent way to cope with this problem. Please let us recognise a reality.
Mr. Faragher: Your Excellency, I was going to be extremely brief and will be. The answer to this problem, I am quite sure, lies in item 31; it does not lie in item 30 (Members: Hear, hear.) on this Agenda, and I certainly will support the latter but not the former. There is, I am sure, a lot of hostility to be created by the creation of the position
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated
T2322 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 of traffic wardens on the Isle of Man. I think there is a considerable benefit to be gained by the introduction of fixed penalties, not only for road traffic but for other offences as well. But I am fairly sure that this House will give fairly brief treatment to the traffic wardens just now and then get on to the really interesting item on this Agenda next.
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I would just like to say at the very start there have been one or two statements made here today that I certainly am very concerned with, and the first is, of course, that we seem to be accused of being the originators and the perpetrators of this terrible and heinous crime of creating one-way streets, a one-way system. That, of course, was a system that was originated with the co- operation and now of course we are left holding the baby, so that does not mean to say that I do not believe in one-way systems; I do, and this is really the start of a system of parking which is going to use that one-way system as a base, and it has been said — and let us correct these figures now, which people have referred to — that this is going to reduce the number of parking places in that particular area. That is so but it is also going to increase the legal parking places by 170. So we are left with a deficit of parking places of 210. Now the majority of these parking places are not on double yellow lines that we are losing; they are on dangerous parking corners and junctions et cetera, and this is something that we are trying to eradicate. Now one of the assets of the one-way system is of course the limited time parking, and this has been developed in areas where shopping or business needs are created, and that system alone is probably worth the loss in numbers that we have experienced through trying to dispense with illegal parking, but that really needs enforcement to carry that out. There is no way about part and parcel of that, and I believe it is right that you would give very serious thought to introducing traffic wardens, because the police have not the time and it is difficult to force them to do a job which really is a public relations exercise. I am very concerned indeed that it is said that we are, by our very system, seeking to destroy that new phrase 'It is our difference that makes the difference', and I am really concerned because this is not the difference in the Isle of Man. The difference in the Isle of Man is not finding parking places for people. It is being happy and welcoming people and giving them a good time when they are over here and —
Mr. Delaney: Like traffic wardens (Laughter)
Mr. Quirk: — we are are destroying ourselves. Probably we want more Salvation Army officers at the same time. (Laughter) I think it is right to note, all the same, that what we are doing is not driving people away from Douglas; it is the fact that we are not allowing them into Douglas (Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.) and people say to me 'What are you doing? You are encouraging people to go away from Peel shopping. You are encouraging people to go away from Castletown shopping'. That is something I think we should be very serious about, as far as the visitors of the Isle of Man and our visitors from outside, to give them a parking place within Douglas that they need for that particular reason. I can only say, Your Excellency, that I do believe that we have a system here now
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2323
which, if it is enforced and enforced properly, and I do not see any need at all for harassment; I do not see that we are going to employ people who are going to be in any way of that nature. I myself was in the 'Pay and Display' park the other day and I was probably, like the hon. member for Ramsey, not used to paying either. So I went over and I saw there '10 pence for 1 hour' so I got 20 pence and I thought this would do me two hours, but not so; it is 10 pence for the first hour and 30 pence for the second hour. Now the chap came along and he knocked on the door and he just . . . I wondered what he was at and he said `Do you know that you are an hour over time?' and I said `No, I do not as a matter of fact'. 'Well,' he said 'you are. If you want to stop you had better go and get another ticket'. Now probably I should not say this because he was very understanding as far as I was concerned; he could have clobbered me —
Mr. Duggan: He should have done!
Mr. Quirk: — and I suppose I could have got a bit upset as well, but he was the right type of chap for that particular occasion and that is the type of person I believe we will have if we employ traffic wardens. Surely to goodness we have got enough nous to employ the people that can do this job right; I would think we have. Your Excellency, I do feel that we must have enforcement here and I believe that, if we look at this properly, wardens must surely be the answer.
Mr. Morrey: Your Excellency, hon. members, I am basically against the idea of traffic wardens. I do not think they would improve the facilities at all. In fact I feel that it would take the policemen off the street. I have stood up in this hon. Court before and described our police force as .a pimpernel police force, because I believe ,in the principle of community policing. I believe that the traffic wardens should be a last resort, but they would in actual fact drive business out of Douglas. Whereas I shall be voting against this order, I suppose I should be really voting for it, because I believe when you have driven them out of Douglas perhaps we could drive them up to Ramsey and we could take the business.
Mr. Brown: It will be shut. (Interruption)
Mr. Morrey: The hon. member for Ramsey, he goes on to describe the crazy one-way system and, from what I can remember, he voted for it.
Mr. Callin: Your Excellency, I am delighted to hear what I have heard this afternoon —
Mr. Anderson: You have not heard it all yet!
Mr. Callin: — with the exception of the hon. members for Glenfaba and Ramsey. Now we have some very important resolutions on today's Agenda but none will have more of an immediate effect on the general public as the resolution that you
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated
T2324 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 now have before you if it is passed. Now I cannot refrain from saying that it is all very well for those who have private car parking when they come into Douglas. I would pose the question, Your Excellency, where is the call for traffic wardens coming from? I have to say that I do not understand the attitude of what I believe to be the few who are determined to introduce traffic wardens onto the streets of Douglas. Traffic wardens, I am convinced, are not wanted in Douglas. They are not necessary in Douglas and furthermore I believe that, if introduced, as other speakers have said, they will do immense harm to Douglas. Douglas, as a business and tourist centre, has enough problems to contend with at the present time without the self-inflicted wound of traffic wardens. Certainly at this time Douglas Corporation are not in favour of traffic wardens. The Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce who represent a great many business people in this town are against traffic wardens and I cannot believe that those engaged in the tourist business, as the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Martin, has said, would want traffic wardens, as evidenced in a letter that I am sure we have all had a copy of from Mr. T.R.P. Lydiatt, the Director and General Manager of Manx Airlines. I know you have probably all had a copy but I would like to quote from just one paragraph because I believe it was a very good letter, and he says: 'I find it ironical that in a year in which a major change of direction has been made by the Tourist Board and many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent in promoting the differences between the Isle of Man and the rest of the British Isles there are more efforts than ever being made to remove so many of those differences.'. (Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.) I am bitterly opposed to laws which are rigidly enforced one day and have, of necessity, to be completely relaxed the next. Now, what a pleasant site to see the promenade during T.T. period, where vehicles are parked, double parked, not parked, double parked on yellow lines. It may take an extra five minutes to get into town from Onchan, but who cares about that (Members: Hear, hear.) when there is so much good business around? Traffic wardens, if appointed, would have to justify their existence. They would have nothing else to do but hound the motorist. Your Excellency, we can well do without traffic wardens and, furthermore, we can well do without a lot of the yellow paint which has been spoken of this afternoon, (Members: Hear, hear.) which has been put down on the streets of Douglas. Let us all help to bring prosperity to Douglas and not drive it away. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Board mentioned about the problem of dangerous parking. I would not subscribe and I do not believe for one second any member in this Court would subscribe to dangerous parking, but that problem can be dealt with without traffic wardens.
Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, if you try to go along the promenade one of these days and find a car parking space you will have great difficulty in doing it, because the same cars come in day after day and they sit there for the whole day, and that is one of the big problems. The people who come into to shop have not the opportunity to do so and if you build another car park around the bus station, and I think that is necessary and will be necessary sometime, you will find that empty as well, and I can give you an illustration because in T.T. week I myself wanted to park near the Sea Terminal. There were cars parked right out to a dangerous point along that area and yet, where the Peveril Hotel had stood, there was a car
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2325 park there, albeit you had to pay a few pence to get into it. I got into it no trouble, there were endless spaces in and outside there was absolute congestion, and this is the problem. That is what the hon. member for Ramsey has said, that people just will not pay and if you put up a car park and have nobody to enforce that you.are going to be in exactly the same position, and that is the reality of the 'situation and Douglas is now being strangled because of that very factor and I think that there is a requirement for further car parking, but there is a requirement for enforcement of that, and you can get three wardens for the cost of one policeman and I think if those are directed in the way in which this should go, I believe that can be done without undue harassment to the motorist. But, Your Excellency, only just a few months ago we witnessed somebody parking just opposite this building right on the halt sign and time after time it was on the very edge of a serious accident. Fortunately, the person was moved off from parking there. I believe that the job of the police force is looking after crime. There are so many things in relation to drugs and other things that they should be chasing up, they should be looking after, and I believe that it would be a move in the right direction, albeit, as the hon. member said, maybe call them something different, have a different sort of uniform, but at least let us use the space that we have got to the best ability, because at the moment it is not being and if you go into the car park down the road it will be half empty. Until there is enforcement we will not have the use made of the car parking that is available until that happens. I will be supporting the hon. member.
Mr. G.V.H. Kneale: Your Excellency, I think it is time that some member of the Home Affairs Board got up and said a word in support of its chairman and I am doing just that. The hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Martin, referred to this being a unique and beautiful Island. The lower end of Douglas certainly does not come in that category. It is neither unique or beautiful. It is an absolute disgrace and it is the motorists that have been instrumental iii turning it into this kind of a situation, because it should be obvious to anyone that the traffic situation in Douglas has got completely out of control with people, mostly from out of town, coming along and parking from early morning until teatime, blocking up the streets and preventing the people who just want to do some quick shopping or a quick business call, they are denied the opportunity of finding a place to park. Now it is said that if we introduce traffic wardens we will drive the motorists to other towns to do their shopping. But that is the situation we have at the moment; the people are being driven out of Douglas to other places and to emphasise this point the Passenger Transport Board have got a bus going round Douglas with 'Shop in Ramsey' painted on each side. (Interruptions and laughter) Now we certainly require more short-time parking areas in Douglas; we certainly require fixed penalties, and these things must come. But it is no good having these unless someone is responsible for seeing that the time schedules are complied with and that the other Acts of Tynwald that we pass are enforced, because what is the point in us, as legislators, passing laws if nobody is going to enforce them? It is not only the motoring. There is litter; there are all sorts of other things that need enforcing and it is the job of the police to see that these laws are enforced. So if
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2326 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 there are not going to be traffic wardens, then certainly the police will have to wake up and start dealing with the law as it exists. I wonder what the situation — maybe the Attorney-General can tell us — what is the situation about parking without lights, for example? Because I understand there are only very few areas that you can park without lights, but if you go around this Island you will hardly find a car parked with lights at all, but if a motorist comes along and bangs into another motorist who has not got any lights the motorist is charged for running into the back of the other fellow but the other fellow is not charged with being parked illegally without lights. There is an awful lot that we need to look at in our parking laws. The police, I say, have the present responsibility and I believe that they can be much better occupied dealing with other matters which they have a responsibility for, and the fact that we can get possibly three wardens for the price of one policemen, to me, is an added bonus. Somebody has got to enforce the law and, as far as I am concerned, we might as well have it enforced at the least cost possible.
Mr. May: Your Excellency, I think it is true to say that nothing breeds hostility more in the eyes of the motorist than the sight of that dreaded yellow hat band coming down the street towards you, and I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Quirk, say that he wants to welcome people to the Island. Well, if he thinks the sight of those people hovering around the quayside will welcome motorists to this Island I think he has got another thing coming. (Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.) I think it has been said this afternoon that the problem lies in the lack of provision of adequate parking facilities and this, I think, is something that we have to acknowledge and we have to face up to. The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Cain, has said that motorists will not pay, they will not pay 10 pence, they would rather drive into the shop than pay 10 pence. I would point out to the hon. member that one of the success stories in the parking saga is the recent innovation of the Pay and Display' system (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.) down in the Villiers Yard, which is highly utilised. It is very popular and I do not think anyone objects to 10 pence to park in the town centre for a short visit, and it is ideally situated. Now this is the way, I feel, that we should be looking and I think it also has to be acknowledged that one of the major problem areas of the town, as regards the business sector, is this area nearest the quayside, Victoria Street and the quay. Indeed, I would hazard to say if you go around the quayside, if any of us left this Court this instant and went down there you would see instances of vehicles illegally parked all around that particular area and yet, right in the centre of that area, we have an area of land that is owned by the Government Property Trustees or administered by the Government Property Trustees as a car park, but it is administered on a basis that the tenants of that car park pay an annual tenancy for a reserved space. Now, as I say, you can go down there, Your Excellency, this afternoon; you will see dozens of cars double parked, illegally parked all around that area and yet, to walk round the corner, you will look into that car park, which is a legal car park, and it will be totally unutilised, because it is there on an annual basis and the average motorist does not want to pay a reserved parking space for a 12- month period. What I would say to the Government Property Trustees this afternoon is to take
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2327 on board that point and have a look at the situation down there with a view, until such times as we do get round to developing proper multi-storey car park facilities, look at that area with a view to developing it as a Tay and Display' area, as is the Villiers Yard, which would alleviate some of the problems in that area of the town. But, as far as traffic wardens go, please do not let us go down that road because that is not the way to solve the parking problems. (Interruption)
Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, those who are supporting this item are tending to use the argument that we must have enforcement. So let us get away from that one straightaway and say of course we have got to have enforcement, but the question is whether you need traffic wardens to do it. Now hon. members may have noticed a change in Athol Street recently and that change is you can now drive along it. This has not been brought about by traffic wardens, but it has been brought about by enforcement, because our new Chief Constable, and all credit to him, let it be known that in Athol Street the double yellow lines meant what they were there for and there would be not continuous persecution; there would be occasional check-up — the transformation is tremendous. That is what we need in other parts of Douglas. Let us give that a chance before we start to go down the road of increasing our number of traffic wardens, because once we start one, three, five. I am a sceptic, Your Excellency. I can see it mushrooming, and it will not just be Douglas; all towns will have them. Let us stick where we are. Let us use the systems we have and let us support the next item, not this one.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I am delighted to hear the last speaker has changed his mind since the legislation went through the House of Keys where he voted for the particular Clause 33 which allows this order to be placed in front of us, and course the subject of orders has been a cause of controversey lately in relation to legislation and what orders do. There was a number of members at the time who saw the danger that was coming on. We forecast it would be there before the general election because once you give powers to certain groups of people, partiularly in the Isle of Man, they have a tendency to be used, and here were are today, and I believe the members now, the majority of members of the Keys, certainly, will see the dangers of putting on the streets an extra eight people, even if they are at a third of the cost of policemen, to actually go out there and kill. They could be what they call the Manx version of the Special Air Service, Your Excellency — go out there and do something destructive but what we consider to be worthwile in the interests of all and that is what we are saying, because as far as I am concerned, if you look around the maps of Douglas, and my hon. friend the member for North Douglas has indicated the success story, the little success that was had by the modern technology of Pay and Display'. It is a very simple modern idea. It works very well in the Villiers car park; it has proved itself in the short time there. There is ample space round the town for similar developments and not at huge costs, and the costs of one of your traffic wardens will put in, because we have had experience at the airport originally, of doing a similar exercise there — on a grander scale, actually — t Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2328 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 of putting in in areas, and I can think of two. We on the Health and Social Security Board will be handing over, or offering, shortly, to the Government Property Trustees, a piece of property which is the widows' houses down adjacent to the Co-op, where the buses of National Transport park at the moment. When that is levelled, if that is the plan of the Government Property Trustees, it will give ample space down there for another 56 cars to be parked on Pay and Display'. Now that is not the whole problem solved, but that is one area. The second area is the back of the Villa Marina area, if you remember the place where there are some garages to the Gaiety Theatre. There is space there for 36 cars on Pay and Display'. These are the areas you will be attacking before you get to the traffic wardens, to putting up these modern technical units that it means a man puts 10p in, gets a ticket out and sticks it on his windscreen. We have all heard of it; we have seen it and we have used it in the Villiers car park, but we have not given the opportunity for this scheme in this modern idiom of parking to be used. We want to circumvent that and put out this special patrol group on the streets to protect the yellow lines that we have put down there wrongly, and for ten years in this hon. Court I have been saying it. We put them down wrongly. We followed British legislation. We thought that would solve the problem. A friend of mine, Mr. Wilding, made a fortune for his company by putting down this £40,000 worth of paint every year. That is what happened — we got caught up in following British legislation and now we are suffering the consequences, and now to follow them again with putting out, whether you put red white and blue stripes on them makes no difference; they will still be there and they earn their money by moving on people who they consider, under the law, of parking illegally. Now it is not harassment; it is doing their duty, but we put them on a street to do their duty in the full knowledge that they will enforce it and, in enforcing it, will upset the people we are trying to get the money off with which to pay their wages and the policemen's wages and to pay for the double yellow lines we are putting down, that is, the customer, generally referred to now and again, when you get one at the Wild Life Park, as a visitor. That is the exactly the person were are talking about who pays the bills for the majority of people in the Isle of Man. But there is nothing new in what we are doing; it has been going on for so many years it is ridiculous. We follow legislation because we think they have solved the problem. The British Government, like a lot of other Governments, have not solved their problems and certainly in relation to parking they have not solved their problems. At the weekend myself and the hon. member for Ramsey found ourselves in London. Could he honestly tell me he wants to see that situation in the Isle of Man? It is a nightmare; in their capital city is a nightmare in parking. We are not the only people with this problem and they have not solved it, hon. members. None of the big towns in Britain have solved it, whether they have Salvation Army officers or not patrolling; they have not solved the problem. We will not solve it by following them. What we have got to do is get out of our own little pickle and out of our pickle is learning from the mistakes we have made in the past. Do not follow them. Do what we need, and what we need at the moment is to follow up a success story and a success story was indicated by my friend, the member for North Douglas — Pay and Display', not in huge 2,000 car parks but in units around the towns and because what happens to Douglas and I say 'round the towns' because the members for
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2329
Ramsey must be aware — I am sure the hon. member Mr. Bell must be aware — if it happens here in Douglas this year within two years Ramsey will have traffic wardens. It is going to happen. Let us learn from Douglas; let us use Douglas, the capital town of the Island, by putting these small unit Pay and Display'. It can be done, it is going to take a little bit of effort, but you can identify the areas if you look at a map of this town. You can see where it can be done and if we do that, then if that does not work, rather than spend multi-millions on car parks, I would suggest you might very well come back to putting what was contained in Clause 33 into operation. But let us try what we have found and proved to be right. 'Pay and Display' is the only answer.
A Member: Hear, hear.
The Governor: I call on Mr. Walker — and I would hope that we are very near the end of the debate — followed by Mr. Ward.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, car parking is a subject to which every member has in his own mind an answer, and I think we would all agree that there is just no easy answer and certainly, as the last speaker has just suggested, there is room for more Pay and Display', but it is not the answer, Your Excellency. It may help the short-term parker but all it will do is displace those people who are parked there for a longer period of time. Douglas needs at least 1,000 extra car parking spaces if it is going to accommodate the present number of motor cars. If the answer is traffic wardens and no more car parking spaces it means that people have to leave their cars at home or else the problem is just moved up town, and I would suggest that that is not an answer Chester Street has been mentioned by a number of speakers, and it is wrong to say it is not used and it is empty. It is well used. The permanent spaces in Chester Street are all taken up and it is part of the lease that there are a certain number of spaces left for short-term shoppers and it is obvious, I think, that those spaces are going to be empty a large proportion of the time and probably filled for a minority of it. But until the lease is re-negotiated, if that is the thought, that will be in the interests of Government, that will remain the case. It is a jolly good lease I would say to hon. members and I believe it is worth sticking to. It is a matter of enforcement, as the hon. member for Peel so rightly said. As far as I am concerned I think it is a matter for the police. I think the next item Agenda will help them, will assist them. There has been a reluctance in the past from the police to prosecute because of the paperwork and the time involved. Hopefully fixed penalties will assist that. I do believe that the police are needed to walk round the streets. We hear cries for community policing and part of that community policing must be for traffic, traffic regulations and traffic offences, and I have a horrible feeling that if we had traffic wardens we would never ever see a policeman in down town Douglas and I think that that would be a very sad thing as well. I know that they have got other priorities; I know about the drug situation; I know about the crime and the fraud and all the rest of it. But we should not pretend that if we had traffic wardens we will be able to put more men into those particular sections. I think we will be being misled if we thought that that were the case.
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2330 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
As far as 'Pay and Display' goes, it has been a success down Chester Street. Can I say it was encouraged by the Local Government Board and we are jolly glad it was. (Members: Hear, hear.) It is ironic, I suppose that that in fact is policed by a Douglas Corporation member of staff, not by the police. I do believe that it is important to keep the Isle of Man different to the United Kingdom. I go along with the theme of the Tourist Board. It is one I used in 1976 and I think it is quite right. I think we should stick with the police and it may be unpopular for those who are caught but, believe you me, those who adhere to the law and the traffic regulations I believe will compliment the police for the decisions they have to make.
Mr. Ward: Your Excellency, I would like to clear my position as far as a member of the Home Affairs Board is concerned and I think I have got to be particularly fair. Within the Home Affairs Board my sympathies were very much with what Mr. Martin thinks about and I did agree — and I am very glad I did — to support the motion in the Home Affairs Board, purely to get it before Tynwald. Having said that, I am very glad of the debate. I think that it has been quite sensible; it has been quite rational. While I, to use an expression of my mates again, take on board many of the criticisms which may be levelled at the police to some degree, I have always taken the attitude towards traffic wardens that they are the last resort, and of course I think my chairman mentioned it was in the Council some ten years ago and I was part, I think, at the ten or 12 years; I am not quite sure, of the Douglas Town Council at that particular time and of course the sore point then that, even though we had even got to the point of nearly discussing the possibility of traffic wardens, whilst of course the Government at the time thought that the Douglas Corporation should employ them and pay for them. So that got skidded. But that was one of the . . . So times have changed and we have come round the clock. But the thing about it is that I find myself, because I have always said that traffic wardens are the last resort, we have got to have all the other sort of legislation, like fixed penalties and that, everything well acquainted, and I do believe in full sympathy for the motorist. As my colleague Mr. Catlin said, to people who come into Douglas and have got annual car parks and have got places to park it is a very simple operation, but I think that we have got to bend over backwards before we think of introducing traffic wardens, that we have got to do our damnedest, whether it is through the creation of one-way systems or whether it is removal of yellow lines; I think we have got to do that. Now somebody, I think, during the debate did mention the fact that one of the most painful parts of parking, particularly in downtown Douglas, is the access and egress coming out of side roads and sidestreets. I acknowledge that very much and anybody that knows me within the police organisation, it is something that I have tried to be very strong about. Now that we have, as the member for Peel has said, the clearance of Athol Street was perhaps the on-the-spot action of somebody who has seen it through completely new eyes. I would certainly take on board the possibility that one of the things, along with all the other ingredients of one-way traffic or removing of yellow lines and all the extra parking that we can get, we have got to at least provide a chance that the motorist in Douglas has got an alternative if he is going to be hounded.
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated
TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2331
Quite frankly, if we are talking about the numbers game, and we are only talking about the possibility of two traffic wardens, which to my mind perhaps in one area of Douglas could become a festering sore with regard to the rest of the town, and I think that we have got to bend over backwards. I would certainly as far as I am concerned — and I will be taking that attitude, that as long as I am in charge of the Police Committee — now we have got to start the same operation as we started with Athol Street. We have got to start it and we get back to the old days where if you parked within 20 yards of a halt sign or a white line you were in trouble '2 (Members: Hear, hear.) and I think that we have got to enforce that as one of the measures that could help the circulation of traffic round Douglas. I think if we can go along, then, I have got no doubt in my mind that probably after I am gone you will have traffic wardens of one way or another and I hope, if that happens, it has to be in the whole Isle of Man and not in Douglas; that might happen. But I think it is up to us, and we owe it to the motorist, we owe it to the business people in Douglas, but we have got to bend over backwards to see that the traffic warden is the very last resort.
The Governor: The chariman to reply.
Mr. Ward: So you know which way I will be voting. (Laughter)
Mr. Cringle: Thank you, Your Excellency. I am sure that members will have appreciated already that there is no whip on as far as the Home Affairs Board are concerned, (Laughter) on this particular issue. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to point out, in fairness to my board members, as my hon. colleague who has just resumed his seat, Mr. Ward, has just pointed out, as Chairman of the Police Committee of the Home Affairs Board, Home Affairs Board members felt that there was a requirement for this item to come before Tynwald Court, and I think that was a very important decision for my board members to take on board. I too have found the debate an interesting debate, but in fact it has run exactly true to form. Now I am not that naive that I thought I was on a winner by moving the idea that everybody would like traffic wardens. I mean to say, I knew that that was not a snowball's, as it were, of winning that one. But at the same time I am Chairman of the Home Affairs Board and as Chairman of the Home Affairs Board that board has ultimate responsibility for the policing and therefore for traffic management within Douglas. I also happened at the same time to be a member of the Highway Board, and I am probably one of the members of this hon. Court who has served more than due life sentence as a member of the Highway Board, having served, I think, under four different chairmen. But there I instantly felt that there was a dual responsibility. There is a responsibility which was coming to us via Douglas Corporation on the one hand, as the Chairman of the Highway Board points out, that they have a concern, that they thought that maybe a one-way traffic system should be looked at, so they approached the Highway Board down that line. We have known for some time that there has been considerable concern, and even those members today in this hon. Court who have opposed this resolution in this hon. Court have acknowledged the concern that there is bad parking within Douglas, not one has said that it is very good, they have all acknowledged it. So there is a concern as
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2332 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
to the parking within Douglas. The Corporation are certainly interested in it and again, as the hon. member Mr. Ward has commented, when he was a member of Douglas Corporation before he became a Member of the House of Keys, never mind getting to the elevated bench where he is now, they were talking about the introduction of traffic wardens, and we have the idea put forward on a number occasions this afternoon that 'Pay and Display' is the answer to everything and is very good. My hon. colleague Mr. Walker, Chairman of the Local Government Board, tends to shoot that one down but, nevertheless, logically again, the thread was coming through the debate that there is a lot of merit in 'Pay and Display' parking and, as the hon. member for East Douglas says, the Villiers yard is successful. It is highly successful and one of the reasons it is successful is that it is 'policed.' They have a traffic warden going round checking to make sure that everybody has paid and displayed properly, because if it was enforced everybody would go in and park for the day and that would the end of the story. You need enforcement. (Interruption and laughter) Now I would suggest to this hon. Court that Victoria Street and the hon. member has said that Victoria Street, would be a complete mess and fouled up.
Mr. Brown: I did not say that.
Mr. Cringle: A member did. Victoria Street, to my mind, is an absolute ideal area for short-term parking. (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.) The hon. member who has just shouted 'Hear, hear', I know he has had a couple of tickets —
Mr. Delaney: I have been asking; I have been asking you for seven years!
Mr. Cringle: I think you have had a couple of tickets in Victoria Street but, I mean to say, it is an absolute ideal, and all we have to do is zone the traffic through in a system, do a little bit of kerb re-alignment down Victoria Street and you have a considerable number of additional cars right in the centre of the shopping area, where my wife wants to go shopping, and she is one of the ones, for example, who says she would prefer to go anywhere else to shop than Douglas because it is so difficult in parking. We have had the indication given by my hon. colleague that Athol Street, is a wonderful place because now you can drive along Athol Street and the Chief Constable has come in with those new eyes and sent out a nice letter and, having sent out a nice letter, the police move in and everybody runs; those cars shifted; they instantly moved. Not very many extra went into Chester Street, incidentally. They went down Bank Hill, they went all over the place. I would suggest to this hon. Court at the same time St. George's Street and Hill Street were equally affected, but what has happened to them if you go along there today? You will find that the motorist, inside a month, five weeks, is creeping back and I would suggest to you even Athol Street is not as clear as what it was the first week. So let us look at the Chief Constable's idea and say 'Yes, we have all these double yellow lines. We need to get rid of them'. Members again, a central theme to the debate — 'Get rid of the double yellow lines'. I have held hands up, as the hon. member for Middle quoted from Hansard on many occasions, that we should rub out the double yellow lines; we really have far too many. They were not put down by any member of this hon. Court. They were put down by Douglas Corporation.
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2333
Now let us look at the area which we are talking about in relation to this particular one-way system.
Mr. Duggan: Guilty.
Mr. Cringle: Let us look at it. Yes, the hon. members for Douglas are the guilty parties. (Interruption and laughter) Presently in the control area, as suggested by the Highway Board, there are out there, on average, parked 650 cars at the present time; 650 cars, vehicles is what we are talking about in that particular area, and do you know that if the Chief Constable took the same action as he took on Athol Street, out of those 650 currently legally only 280 of them are parked in a legal position, according to Douglas Corporation double yellow lines? So we are condoning over 50 per cent. of our motorists breaking the law every day now. That is what we are doing. (Interruptions) Now, the one-way system, let us look at this whole situation logically. It is not bringing anybody any satisfaction, the introduction of wardens, but it may be necessary and I am putting the case now, if you feel I did not put it before. You have a position where you only have 280, approximately, legal car park spaces. The provision of the one-way system and rubbing out the double yellow lines means that in fact there will be an additional 170 legal car park spaces —
Mr. Duggan: They are already illegal in parking there.
Mr. Cringle: They are already parking there, but they will become legal.
Mr. Duggan: They are not extra, though.
The Governor: Hon. members —
Mr. Cringle: That will mean —
The Governor: Hon. members! I must — sit, please; I am speaking. Hon. members I caution you again — will you' please sit for a moment, Mr. Cringle — I must caution you again, as I did at the last sitting, hon. members, that you are bringing this House into disrepute. You must observe Standing Orders. If someone wishes to interrupt it must be done properly so that the speaker may sit down. Now will you please continue, Mr. Cringle.
Mr. Cringle: Yes, sir. As I said, we have 650 spaces; 280 of them, approximately, are legal now and you would have an additional 170 spaces, making 450 legally parked cars within that are. Now that is not the end of this story as far as the Highway Board/Home Affairs Board are concerned. As far as we are concerned this whole thing has to be a package — wardens, fixed penalties, one-way — the whole lot, and along with that package we would like to see — and we have made no secret of this in any context — we would like to see immediately, by 1st January, introduced additional car parking at Lord Street at the bus station. It can be done; it can be done very simply and speedily. There are 1,500 square metres down there which could be instantly turned into car parking, without Cambrian Place, which
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2334 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 was referred to again by the member for East Douglas, which again would provide an additional 70 legal car park spaces where we require them. So already I am up to 520 legal car park spaces without any harassment or without any hassle. Now there are 650 out there parked and with Pay and Display' and movement of traffic I would suggest to you that, a number of those being short-term, you have almost reached the position — I am not saying you have reached it, because I concur with my hon. colleague who suggests we need long-term car parking facilities — but you have almost reached a position where the natural, the natural Isle of Man Douglas traffic can be managed properly, and it puts us in the position of the motorist not being badly and illegally parked within the area, but having the satisfaction of knowing that they were legally and properly parked. We have many, cases of bad parking, which has been commented about, on the junctions even around this building; many occasions that has been indicated. But the police again have a problem in that context. Although it has been an offence up to recent legislation, it has required notice of intention of prosecution and all the paperwork and all the rigmarole that goes along with it. Frankly, that, I am equally sure, is not what this hon. Court wants. You are holding up your hands and you are saying you have got a problem; you are acknowledging there is a problem, and yet at the same time you are not following the thing through to its logical conclusion. I concur with my hon. colleague who says we need long-term car park spaces. I am absolutely convinced of that within Douglas area. But I am also certain that there is a problem within the streets of Douglas now which can be handled if in fact you have the will to handle it, and I have no intention whatsoever of misleading this Court in relation to the introduction of traffic regulations and the provisions of wardens, which was indicated maybe I was doing before. As I have said, as Chairman of the Home Affairs Board and ultimate responsibility of the parking, the policing within Douglas and as a member of the Highway Board who is responsible and has been asked by Douglas Corporation if they would consider doing something about it, I felt, and it has been asked this afternoon, who is asking for this to happen? Well, if somebody has to take the blame, Your Excellency, my shoulders are broad enough. I honestly do not mind. I took the decision, as far as I was concerned, that a decision could be made if you followed it all the way through to its ultimate conclusion, but it requires all coming together as a package. The whole thing has to go together. This enables the Homes Affairs Board to appoint traffic wardens. I would suggest that we want to get with the Government Property Trustees, Douglas Corporation and the transport people to be able to have off- street parking. We need to introduce, for a few thousand pounds, new street furniture and a zoned area of Douglas, to introduce additional legal car parking spaces. Now if you put the whole lot together as a package you can do something and, as I indicated in my opening brief, the reverse is to say 'Well, we are sorry, we will do nothing until long-term off street car parking is here' and that may very well mean that for the next two or three years we drift on in the merry way in which we are at present. If that is the way members want it, well, that is okay. I do not mind and that is why I pay tribute to my Home Affairs Board for permitting this resolution to come before Tynwald Court because Tynwald Court ultimately will make the decision. But there is, Your Excellency and members of the Court, a solution, short- term, to a problem which we have all acknowledged, those of us that support the
Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2335 resolution and those that who are opposed, and it is that point and the point of enforcement on which I rest my case.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board at item 30 on the Agenda. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys —
For: Mr. Quirk, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Cringle, G.V.H. Kneale and Cain — 5
Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Morrey, J.H. Kneale, Payne, Karran,.Walker, Faraghgr, Brown, May, Duggan, Cretney, Delaney, Martin, Irving, Dr. Moore, Mr. Bill and the Speaker — 18
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with five votes being cast in favour and 18 votes against.
In the Council —
For: Mr. Anderson — 1
Against: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Dr. Mann, Mr. Radcliffe, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin — 7
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council seven votes are cast against and one in favour; the motion therefore fails to carry. Hon. members, I propose now that we should break for our tea break and re- assemble at ten past five to take petitions.
The Court adjourned at 4.49 p.m.
PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS TO BORROW A SUM FOR THE REFURBISHMENT OF DWELLINGS ON HILLS ESTATE, DOUGLAS - APPROVED
The Governor: Hon. members, we turn to item 51 on the main Agenda. I call on the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board to move item 51.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, before we do that I have an amendment here that has been circulated to move so that the petition is correct when it is taken by the hon. members and Your Excellency, it has been circulated. The reason for this is that a revised report has been circulated which discovered, following circulation Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved T2336 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 of the original report, that there was a minor arithmetical error in the petition. This is corrected in the substituted report and I beg to move that amendment, Your Excellency:
That in accordance with Standing Order 209 the provisions of Standing Order 195(3) be waived to enable the revised report circulated to members to be substituted for the report originally referred to in the resolution.
A Member: I beg to second.
The Governor: Hon. members, the motion is that the amendment to item 51 in your places should be substituted for that on the Agenda paper which is in error. Is it your wish that we should carry on with this petition on the basis of the amended item 51? (It was agreed.) Let us proceed then with the amended item 51.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, this petition covers the refurbishment of 56 dwellings on the Hills Estate, Douglas which were built around 1920 and 1925. These refurbishment works comprise a first phase of upgrading the houses on the Hills Estate to a sufficient modern standard. The works are similar in character to those that have been and are being undertaken by the board and other housing authorities on the Island and are consistent with the board's policy of encouraging the upgrading of public authority houses. The whole of the Hills Estate comprises some 161 dwellings, so this petition is the first of three that will be brought forward over a period to deal with the whole estate. The board is satisfied the works are desirable and the costs are acceptable given the larger-than-average size of these houses. The board have noted the minor error of addition in the petitioned sum of £985,000 and recommend the petition be modified to allow the borrowings not to exceed the sum of £983,000. Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the prayer of the petition be and the same is hereby granted, subject to the reduction of the amount to be borrowed from £985,000 to £983,000.
Mr. Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, in relation to the refurbishment most hon. members of this hon. Court will agree are in the policy to be carried out by the Local Government Board and this Government, but I am concerned about the situation in relation to the dwellings and the people who are in the dwellings that are to be refurbished. I am given to understand that these people are to be removed from this existing situation into accommodation which is to be given to them in areas around Douglas until their existing accommodation is refurbished. What I would like to ask is, what at this moment in time is the number of dwellings required? How many at this moment are vacant? And, if the contract takes place, what is to be the situation in relation to the people when they move back? What is going to be the situation for the existing tenants and the people who are awaiting accommodation from Douglas Corporation? I am given to understand that with this particular development, although it has been on the cards to be planned over a long period, there are at this moment in time no lettings taking place by Douglas
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2337
Corporation to people who are deserving of letting on the existing housing list because they have not got the accommodation necessary to accommodate the people who have to move out of the Hills Estate.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I will, of course, speak to the first petition which we are now considering but my remarks do equally apply to petitions covered by items numbers 52, 54 and 55 — I certainly do not want to repeat myself regarding the later ones. Of course we all support the principle of these petitions. It must be right to maintain the infrastructure of our buildings and even more important when we are talking about houses, because I am sure the aim of every hon. member of this Court is that every person in this Island should have more than a decent house, they should have a modernised house to live in. Therefore I support the objectives. However, I believe, like many other people, I am deeply concerned as to whether this Government is truly getting value for money in respect of these contracts. I am convinced personally, although I must admit I cannot prove it, that private sector individuals or companies would be getting similar work done at considerably less cost. If one looks at the item before us, the costs of refurbishing these 56 dwellings at Hills Meadow averages no less than £17,600 per dwelling or home. Private sector developers are producing completely new living units including groundworks, land acquired and everything else for not greatly more than this. If we turn to item 52 regarding replacement of windows at Spring Valley, we have an average cost for each of the 26 dwellings of over £2,300 per house and this is for windows. We turn to item 54, the refurbishment of six dwellings at Castletown — the cost averages over £16,000 each on average. Finally, when we come to item 55, the cost of plumbing and heating improvements for 35 houses at Ramsey averages almost £3,000 each. I am deeply concerned about these costs. I must admit that I have not got the answer to them but I hope there may be other members of this hon. Court who can come up with solutions whereby we can get these works done at a lower cost because in my bones, although I cannot prove it I am sure that if this was work in the private sector it would be done infinitely more economically. I see the chairman of the board shaking his head, but I can say that I have talked to people connected with this who also feel though they cannot prove it, that such work in the private sector would be done more economically.
Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, on the point that the hon. member has raised, if he finds the answer I will be very glad to have it; having had a house which I acquired of the Local Government Board and renewed two windows on it cost me over £1,500 for two windows and that is in a competitive world, and if you go in to put in anything that is going to be durable today you are in a very difficult position indeed and there is no cheap answer to this. If you get a cheap answer you get a cheap result and the result will be an unsatisfactory one. I think the job has got to be done properly. I know we did in my time on the Local Government Board the houses at the Hope and it made a colossal difference to those houses. We put in the new materials and they will be free of maintenance in the future and I am sure the people in that area appreciated what was done at that time very much indeed, because they were very draughty, they were steel windows and they were causing
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved T2338 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 cracks et cetera and it has made a great deal of difference. There is no cheap answer to this and I am sure they have gone out on tender on these prices and I think, if you come up with a cheap answer, you would get an unsatisfactory job in my view.
Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, I welcome the petition. It is certainly going to give better living conditions for my constituents and also create quite a lot of work. I think the Corporation are doing a very good job in the rolling programme of refurbishing but I am concerned that there seems to be a stalemate when it comes to transit houses and why the Corporation have not really planned ahead. I know they have 350 on the housing list which is a problem for them, but my constituents are very concerned over suitable transit properties and a lot of them are very worried about this.
Mr. Martin: Your Excellency, like the hon. member Mr. Gilbey, I am concerned that the Local Government Board are getting value for money and I am sure that they will look into this. The reason I rose to my feet was my hon. colleague, Mr. Delaney, raised the question of the people being moved out of their houses and then moved back again and I would like the assurance from the Local Government Board and Douglas Corporation that no cost will fall on the tenants for having to move out and move back again. Thank you, Your Excellency.
Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, hon. members, I would like to say that I really believe in refurbishment. I believe that if we refurbished a lot of those dwellings that we have, we retain the character that we know so well. The work is intensive, it brings much needed jobs, whereas I believe a re-building situation could be done with half the labour but that defeats most of the object. But one of the things that I would like to bring to the petitioners' notice: I would like to see them pay very great attention to using Manx-produced articles. I am thinking in the terms of things like window-frames. I understand there have been times when English window frames were being bought when they could just as well have been made in Sulby and places like this and I would just like them to take this point on board to make absolutely certain that the Manx companies are given the first choice.
Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, of course I fully support the petition and the petitioners here today. It has been mentioned by one or two members about the subject of the transit houses and I think I should make it clear once again — I think we have already tried to make it clear — that there has been a problem. I think the Corporation and the Local Government Board have recognised that problem, and part of the problem was that the Environmental Health Department of the Local Government Board made it clear to the Corporation that they had a list of certain houses that they considered might have been suitable as transit accommodation, and the Corporation have equally made it quite clear that they considered that those properties that were proposed by the Local Government Board could not be considered as appropriate or suitable properties in which to place the people while these works were getting done and that is for a number of reasons. Amongst those reasons was the fact that some of the properties were really in such a poor state that it would take such a time to get them done that, by the time they got round to it, it would not be any good for a number of jobs that we are hoping to put
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2339 forward. Another reason was that some of the properties that the Local Government Board and the Environmental Health Department had proposed to the Corporation were three and four-storeyed buildings which are not suitable at all. What the Corporation require, ariTI think what has been recognised now by both parties, are small town houses. There are a number of those about the town and I hope and trust that the Chairman of the Local Government Board — I am sure he is aware of it . . . that and the two sides will get together to try and resolve this because that is the only stumbling block, that is the only thing that is a problem with this contract as far as I am concerned. It has gone out to competitive tender, the work that is getting done is long overdue. It is damp in a number of these houses and it is electrical work that is long overdue that needs to be completed. I fully support the petitioners and I just wish them and the Local Government Board luck and hope they can get together and solve the problem of the transit accommodation. That is the only problem and with that, thank you, Your Excellency.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I would just say that I am fully in support not only of this refurbishment but of all the other refurbishments that are on the Agenda in fact have gone previously, and I think Government over the past few years has spent something like £5 1/2 million in refurbishing properties. Before anybody looks in horror could I just say that that refurbishment programme is long overdue, because when the Government of the day in the '60s and '70s could have been able to do it they were in fact so busy building brand new local authority houses and therefore I think it is something that this Court should support very much because people's properties have been let to go in some cases. I think you also, with this petition, have to look at the age of the houses; these are quite old houses, built in the 1920 period and have not had an awful lot done to them, really, to update them apart from, as time has progressed, extra facilities being added. Therefore this £17,000 dwelling which was mentioned, which members are saying is a lot of money — in fact, when you look at the age of houses, the price they would be built for, the rents that have been paid over the years by the tenants, is a very good investment for the actual properties that we have there. It is always very easy for members to say 'But the private sector could do it cheaper' or whatever it may be but, with respect, the private sector has not got the same restrictions and the same problems that Government has: every member in this Court looking over the shoulders of the board to make sure it has done right, every developer or builder having the problem that somebody could raise a problem in this Court about what they have or have not done in a development, and therefore it tends to reflect the prices. Also an individual private person can go out and use cheaper labour on the project, which Government cannot necessarily do because the rates have to be paid at the correct rate, so I think that should be borne in mind when doing that. I would just make the comment also that, when using Manx products or Manx companies, I think every member of this hon. Court is very conscious of trying where possible to use local firms, but there is a responsibility on those firms to make sure that they are competitive with whoever else tenders for a product, because otherwise we will inflate our costs out of proportion if they think that they cannot or they do not have to compete against costs elsewhere. So while that is so we still have to be competitive.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved 12340 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Just a final point I would like to make, Your Excellency, which has been mentioned in this Court on a few occasions today and in the past: this problem over transit housing. Could I make it very clear, because it is seeming to be indicated that the only people who have a problem with transit housing are the Douglas Corporation, tliat that is not so. Everybody who is doing the refurbishment has got to stalemate some transit houses for a period of time while refurbishments go ahead. Now before we get all the problems that they have a bigger waiting list, which I acknowledge, they also have the biggest housing stock in the Island, so we should acknowledge that. In fact, when you then relate it to the actual size in proportion to the other districts — and one is coming up in Castletown later where they are going to have to hold six houses — when you relate that to the size of the amount of houses they have, the problem is the same for everybody, the Local Government Board as well as the chairman has said previously. So while we are very conscious of doing all we can, as are the Corporation, of trying to make it as easy as possible to resolve these problems and not having people unnecessarily waiting on the housing list, we have to acknowledge that the best way to do it is by providing transit houses where you can, and try to minimise the problems for the people who may be waiting on a housing list to be housed or whatever. But at the end of the day, for the benefit of everybody, the investment will mean a much better house for people to live in, it will raise the quality of local authority housing, and it will mean that in this period when we are not building new, we are going to resolve a lot of the problems that should have been done many years ago and I hope this Court will support it.
The Governor: Hon. members, I would like to give the Court the opportunity to decide whether they want to hear from the Town Clerk, Mr. Peers. Mr. Karran.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I would like two points in particular. I think what many of my hon. colleagues have said about the price — obviously what we are after is we want decent accommodation. Now we are going to be paying just under £17,700 for this particular item per house if I have done my sums right. What concerns me is that the situation is that one finds that in the past a lot of this work has been done in different local authorities, and what we found is that we found walls that are supposed to be built on paths of two or three inches thick, I have personally experienced where they have put doors on and there has only been two screws holding the door on and the rest is putty with what you call it. All I ask and I think every hon. member in this hon. Court asks is that, if this money is to be allowed for Douglas Corporation, it is properly supervised and we must make sure that they do do the job. They are getting paid well at £17,700 and I do not think any of us would begrudge the money, but what I would like to see is assurances that it will be properly supervised. May I also say, Your Excellency, that I am rather surprised that there does not seem to be any allocation as far as damp courses or that in the Hills Estate. There are problems in this estate as far as this is concerned because, as a former joiner there, we did have problems with certain houses, not many of them, but there are certain houses. I wondered whether there will be any financial provision put in for this. Finally we have heard great play about the situation as far as transit houses. I think the hon. member for Castletown is quite right when he says that other local
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2341
authorities are in a bad situation as far as having to suspend giving people houses, but the point is that you have got to remember that for the last month and until they reckon to the end of September nobody in Douglas is going to be able to get a house unless it is in extreme circumstances. I think that the situation is getting critical, it does have its overtones as far as the private sector which affects us all. r Thank you, Your Excellency.
Mr. May: Your Excellency, I think it is about eight years since the Corporation initially embarked on their programme of house refurbishment. It started initially in lower Pulrose and from there it went on into James Street, King Street and Lord Street and now we are progressing and going into Hillside Avenue. Now initially at the outset there were grave problems, there were mistakes made as there always are and there always will be in any new project in finding the feet, unfortunately. I do not think there was any member of the Corporation during the time of the refurbishment to lower Pulrose and Lord Street who was not inundated with complaints from tenants who had to put up with abysmal conditions while living in the actual premises while they were refurbished around them. This was just found to be totally unsatisfactory. The Corporation have got the job right now. The only solution is to move the people out to transit accommodation and then carry out the work while the premises are empty, it is much more effective from the contractor's point of view, it is certainly much more desirable from the tenants point of view than to live in conditions of dust and major upheaval for a long period of weeks, but unfortunately we have this problem of the transit accommodation, and, no matter what is said here today, it is something that cannot be evaded. It will not go away; this is a problem. The hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Brown, has tried to relate this problem to the problem which is experienced by other local authorities. Well, I would say it is slightly different in the Douglas area and I would like hon. members to take note of that because, as I have said, they have already refurbished lower Pulrose, they have done Lord Street, King Street, James Street, Queen Street, Quine's Corner, now they are going into the 60-year-old houses on the Hills Estate. When these are done presumably the next move will be to the Olympia Estate which are houses of a similar age, then into Willaston, so what I am saying, Your Excellency, is that there is for the far foreseeable future a long programme of refurbishment and this problem with transit houses is something that will be there right the way through if this programme takes 25 years to complete; the problem of transit houses will be there for that time. I would certainly implore both the Corporation and the Local Government Board to address themselves urgently to this problem — I know it is of concern to both parties — for the benefit of the people who are being stuck back on the housing list. Just in conclusion, Your Excellency, in relation to the comments of the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey, who questions the price of £17,600, I would say looking at the list of works to be carried out on these properties short of actually re-building them structurally, virtually everything internal and external is being replaced. Now for £17,600 I would suggest that the hon. member is slightly out of touch with reality if he suggests that that is a strong price to pay.
The Governor: Hon. members, is it agreed that the learned Town Clerk should
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved T2342 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 be heard by the Court? (It was agreed.) I call on the learned Town Clerk of Douglas, Mr. Peers.
Mr. Peers: Your Excellency, I am not sure exactly how many of the questions that the hon. members have raised the hon. Chairman of the Local Government Board would wish to answer. If I can answer the ones I think particularly pertinent to the Corporation, at present we have, I think the latest count as of yesterday was, 11 transit houses and we need 14. The scheme is due to start at the beginning of August so we are hopeful we will have the remaining three. The Corporation's policy, because of difficulty in obtaining transit houses, as the hon. member for East Douglas mentioned, was that we stopped re-letting until we achieved the pool of 14, but we would hope that now shortly we will be able to do something once we get up to the 14. Within the price or the petition figure is not only the cost of the works but members have raised the question of no costs or expenses falling on the tenants. Within those figures removal expenses are being paid to and from the transit houses. If any of the tenants choose not to move into a transit house but want to move in and live with relatives and want their furniture stored, we are paying the costs of storage of the furniture. Disconnections and reconnections of gas and electricity and telephones have all been taken care of at the wishes of the Local Government Board as well, particularly, to fit in so that the tenants have none of those expenses. Perhaps more importantly for the period that they are in the transit accommodation they are living rent-free, not rates-free because we cannot say that we do not wish to collect rates, we have to collect the rates, but the rent element of their payment is free for the period while they are in the transit accommodation. The contract is a 16-month contract, Your Excellency, this is hopefully the first phase. We are doing them 14 at a time so for 56 it is a four-month completion job on each of the 14 blocks, so the people in the transit houses will be out for the four months. I gather, Your Excellency, I have got a list of some of the works but, from what the hon. member for North Douglas mentioned, members have already seen the specification of the work that is being done, but I can assure members as well that wherever possible we use Manx-produced goods. That is a requirement of the terms of the contract. I think that answers the majority of the questions. If not, I will try and answer any more.
The Governor: Does any hon. member wish to ask questions of the learned clerk? Mr. Delaney.
Mr. Delaney: In congratulating you on the work that has already been carried out, the manner of the work, the style and the way the contractors have worked, mainly under bad conditions and certainly with the tenants in, I am interested in the situation where you are going onto this contract and you have not completed number 1 King Street specifically. I am aware of two tenants in that property who have not agreed to move. What date do you intend to move into that particular property, 1 King Street, to carry out works and have you settled the dispute between yourself and the tenants? That is the first question. The second one is, of the 14 transit houses have all these tenants agreed to move to respective properties you are allocating them in the Hills Estate?
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 12343
Mr. Peers: I am sorry, Your Excellency, but in respect of 1, King Street, I do not know the answer to what the hon. member has mentioned.
Mr. Delaney: Can I put it this way? On the refurbishment programme outlined for Hills Estate it is a similar refurbishment to King Street. There you are due to finish 1 King Street which will complete the whole block. You have tenants who are refusing to move at the moment because they have not got suitable accommodation. Therefore I take it your contract is held up and, to put it bluntly, the Corporation then could be in breach of the contract they have with their contractors. Can you tell me, has that dispute been settled as yet?
Mr. Peers: I am sorry, Your Excellency, I cannot. I do not know the circumstances.
Mr. Delaney: Right. Then can I ask you about the specific item in front of us, the 56 houses. Of the people who have to remove from Hillside Avenue — where these houses are on the Hills Estate — have they agreed at this moment in time to so move into this accommodation that you are holding for them?
Mr. Peers: They have not all agreed to the best of my information, Your Excellency. We are still talking and negotiating with them. Of course it is critical there are three more to come, but some of the people have agreed, I understand, to take the houses we are suggesting as transit accommodation, but not all have yet agreed. That is an on-going discussion with the Housing Officer.
Mr. Delaney: Can I ask then, Your Excellency, as this is a fixed price contract or looks to me to be a fixed price contract, if these houses are not available for the contractor to move into because you have not got an agreement with the tenants to move out, what penalties are involved?
Mr. Peers: In fact, my instructions are, Your Excellency, it is a fluctuating price contract.
Mr. Delaney: But surely there is a date fixed for the contractor to move in?
Mr. Peers: The assumption is, if the petition is approved today, Your Excellency, I am told it is 1st August.
Mr. Delaney: And if he cannot move into the site, the houses, because they have not been freed by the sitting tenants, what cost to the Corporation will be involved?
Mr. Peers: Inflation costs are my instructions, Your Excellency.
Mr. Delaney: Just inflation costs?
Mr. Peers: Yes.
Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, could I ask the learned Town Clerk, with
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved T2344 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 reference to the transit accommodation could he confirm it was the Estates Committee's view that the properties that were offered by the Local Government Board Environmental Health Officer or that department . . . that the reason they' were rejected was because they were considered to be unsuitable for one reason or another, either through size of the building or through delapidation?
Mr. Peers: I can confirm, Your Excellency, yes, I am aware; just to clarify for other members, we are hoping to have further discussions with the Local Government Board and get, perhaps, if I could call it a second list. The first list proved unacceptable to the Corporation, as the hon. member has mentioned, for a variety of reasons. If we can get a second list we can look at some of those properties, but please, if the hon. Court would bear in mind, if we get them and then refurbish them it does not help us in our immediate problem of wanting three more transit houses in the next six months even for that matter. It would take a lot longer than that, I would have thought, to acquire the properties and refurbish them, but we are hoping for further discussions with the Local Government Board at an early date.
Mr. Brown: Could I ask the learned Town Clerk, Your Excellency, how long did it take the Corporation to achieve the 11 transit houses that they have at the moment?
Mr. Peers: About six to eight weeks at present.
Mr. Brown: Could you just confirm that if these 11 houses were — and you are after 14 — allocated to tenants and therefore these tenants were long-term tenants you would be no worse off than being used for transit houses because they would then not be available for re-let? Do you understand my question? In other words, if these 11 transit houses which you are now going to use as transit houses for a period of time had been let to tenants who were going to stay there for a period of time you would be no worse off?
Mr. Peers: Yes, I would accept that.
Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, there are just two points I would like to clarify, again going back to these transit houses: there seems to be an element of confusion creeping in here. Mr. Town Clerk, could you confirm that the first approach that the Douglas Corporation made to the Local Government Board for transit houses was with a scheme to new-build 14 houses in the Anagh Coar area?
Mr. Peers: That is quite correct, Your Excellency, yes.
Mr. Bell: Would you also confirm, Mr. Town Clerk, that the average cost per house in this scheme was well in excess of £40,000 per unit and that was the main reason why the Local Government Board at that time turned down the scheme as being financially unacceptable?
Mr. Peers: That is quite right, Your Excellency, yes.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2345
Mr. Bell: Would you also confirm, Mr. Town Clerk, that the Local Government Board then suggested that we were very mindful of the situation you found yourself in, that you needed these transit houses and, in line with the policy that the Local Government Board was starting to pursue itself relating to town centre re- development, that the Local Government Board suggested to your colleagues at that z time that you should look to the town centre for properties to be refurbished to be used as transit houses?
Mr. Peers: That is quite correct, Your Excellency.
Mr. Bell: At the end of that meeting, Mr. Town Clerk, is it not a fact that the environmental officer said to you that he would be prepared to give you any advice and assistance that he was able to at that time and said that he did have a preliminary list of properties which may possibly be of some interest to your Corporation? Would you also confirm, Mr. Town Clerk, that at no time did the Local Government Board instruct you that this was the one and only list that they would consider of properties suitable for refurbishment and in fact, the Local Government Board said that we would consider any proposals that you were prepared to come back with us relating to all the properties you may be able to identify in the town centre?
Mr. Peers: Yes, Your Excellency. The list that the hon. member for Ramsey has mentioned was the list that was sent through and we rejected for one reason or another. The second list that I mentioned is the one we hoped to glean from a further meeting, that we can consider those houses then, but that is the list I was referring to and that arrived as promised but it was unacceptable. We are now hoping for number two list if we can have a meeting.
Mr. Bell: You will confirm, then, that at no time the Local Government Board insisted on you perusing one single list of old properties?
Mr. Peers: No, if I gave that impression I regret it and withdraw it, Your Excellency. I did not intend to say that. It was never laid down 'this is a once and for all take it or leave it'. That was never the intention; it was never interpreted as such either.
Mr. Bell: And at the end of the day the reason this refurbishment of the town centre properties did not go ahead was purely and simply because the Douglas Corporation did not want to go ahead with it at that time. They were insistent on new build.
Mr. Peers: No, sorry. The suggested refurbishment list arose as a result of the rejection of the new build and we have progressed from that. The new build at Anagh Coar, the £40,000 or whatever it was — I forget the figure and the number of houses — that started off the suggested list of town centre properties that may be suitable for the Local Government Board to acquire and refurbish. That was the list that we proved unacceptable. We now, of course, have a problem. We are hoping to get another list that we can look for some time in the future, other refurbishment schemes, which would give us a pool of additional houses, not new build but
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved T2346 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 refurbished to add to the stock available for general letting.
Mr. Duggan: Mr. Town Clerk, has the Estates Committee considered my offer to the Corporation regarding new properties? I did offer to come to Tynwald and make a case under the circumstances for building new properties. Did the Estates Committee consider this?
Mr. Peers: The Corporation to build new properties?
Mr. Duggan: Yes. I said I would come to Tynwald and ask for the money. I asked the Corporation to consider this when you met us at the Local Government Board.
Mr. Peers: Yes, but the one I think there was we had put forward the Anagh Coar scheme, I think it was, which was rejected, I think, by the Local Government Board. But, as I recall, purely from memory, you did say that if we wanted to press it you would come forward before the hon. Court. We have not progressed that because we clearly were getting the message. We recognised, that there were certain properties within the town centre with closing orders on for a variety of reasons. It will be very useful if they could be brought back into the useful housing stock. The question is the timing of it and, when they are refurbished, are they suitable for the immediate problem we have of transit houses? We need the smaller type of houses, not multi-storey, if I could put it that way.
Mr. Duggan: Your answer, Mr. Town Clerk, to me then is that you did not consider my offer?
Mr. Peers: Not a further one, Your Excellency, of coming back yet again and asking for new build when we had been rejected in the first instance. We did not progress that any further.
Mr. Duggan: You were refused by the board, Mr. Town Clerk, but, as it is my constituency, I said I was quite willing to make a case in Tynwald Court on your behalf.
Mr. Peers: I acknowledge that, Your Excellency. We did not take it any further, no.
Mr. Duggan: One further question, Your Excellency. Has the Corporation considered further looking at the possibility of utilising properties such as Mr. Nicholson's property up at Shoprite or other similar properties during the winter period, holiday accommodation, for transit accommodation?
Mr. Peers: No. We made an approach on that one and it was 'Buy them or else'. They were not willing, even for a long-term let over any period of time. If we wanted to use them for transit houses the answer we received was 'No, but you can buy them', which again was putting us in virtually a new-build situation, but not all of them were suitable for the purposes required. We know our own houses
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and. Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2347 meet the requirement generally of the tenants for transit accommodation; not all would be met by the standards that are available up at the Shoprite area, but again it was 'Buy them' which causes a problem.
Mr. Duggan: But have you not advertised, Mr. Town Clerk, for any properties that would be suitable? Has the Corporation not tried or attempted to? You should try if possible.
Mr. Peers: No, we have not. We are hoping to come back to the Local Government Board at an early meeting we have requested — the chairman is grinning! — with the idea, maybe, rather than if these properties that are not suitable for refurbishment, if there are vacant properties on the market, small town houses, at a minimal cost of re-decoration and repair, if we could, with the hon. Court's permission, purchase those, that is a much faster option than trying to do a long- term refurbishment of older properties.
Mr. Duggan: Just one further question, Your Excellency. Could I ask the Town Clerk, would he be interested in the property that the Local Government Board are refurbishing, namely of 23 Allan Street, when it is refurbished? Would you be interested in that?
Mr. Peers: We would consider it, but we understood the Local Government Board had nothing suitable to offer us from the latest communication. But if they have something that may well be of help we will of course consider it.
Mr. May: Mr. Town Clerk, would it be fair to say that, when the Estates Committee were considering a programme of new-build, the idea of having 14 new houses in one location would be much more convenient, looking at the programme of refurbishment over a period of about 20 to 25 years?
Mr. Peers: That was the attractiveness of it. We were hoping, of course, as well that we could have them built on the green site, if I could call it that, at Anagh Coar and that we could have got them built quicker than a refurbishment. But the attraction was it was a useful transit accommodation which, at the end of the time of refurbishment, would still have a good long life left in them with an additional 14 houses. That was one attractive aspect.
Mr. May: A further question, Mr. Town Clerk. Much has been made in this Court of the price quoted for these houses of new build; could you tell us how the Corporation arrived at the price of £40,000 plus for these houses?
Mr. Peers: It was a costing exercise, Your Excellency, prepared by the quantity surveyors based upon the type of house that we had had built, but added on to that was the elemental fees and that sort of thing. But it was based on existing houses that we knew were suitable but updated with the costs on. That was it, and the quantity surveyors prepared it — a simple costing exercise.
Mr. May: They were in fact costed by quantity surveyors and not by officers
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved T2348 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 of the Corporation?
Mr. Peers: My instructions were they were quantity surveyors, not officers of the Corporation, but obviously in consultation.
Mr. Martin: I feel quite happy, Your Excellency, with the refurbishment programme and the method by which the Corporation wish to take the people out of the houses and then move them back, but what does concern me is, for the tenant who is in the property who is not interested in refurbishment and does not want to move out of his property, what is the policy then of Douglas Corporation? This is the situation that exists in No. 1 James Street at this moment in time.
Mr. Peers: It is part of a scheme, Your Excellency. I am not aware of any tenant of any of the properties who is not interested in the refurbishment. We have had a public meeting and they all seem delighted with our proposals, but of course they clearly know it is spelt out and there are Tenants' Associations that have been formed and the Corporation had the first meeting with the Hillside tenants, and we have not received any indication that no particular tenant wants to move out. I am putting it really as politely as I can, but maybe the hon. member's question is a bit hypothetical, because I am not aware of that sort of situation. If it is part of a scheme the house will be refurbished if at a later date a particular tenant says, 'But I do not want to move', they will have to move because the scheme is to be completed, but I think it is hypothetical at present.
Mr. Martin: What you are saying then, Mr. Town Clerk, is you are going to move the people out regardless of their wishes?
Mr. Peers: Having learned from our previous experiences which have been mentioned in the hon. Court, Your Excellency, of doing the work round the people and the discomfort and the distress that causes, in their own best interests, probably, we would make them move, yes, because for four months we know the problems. We have learned from previous contracts and we have said never again would we try and do refurbishment work with tenants in situ, not on this scale.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, what supervision will there be on doing the work? Also, there are 56 dwellings to be done and there are 108 on this site, so there would 3 not be any problem anyway if a couple decided that they would not move out. There are 108 on the site anyway, so would that be the case?
Mr. Peers: With regard to the first one, in fact there is a full-time clerk of works who will be employed for supervision of the contract. The other one — I am not sure as to the hon. member's question. Do I understand he is meaning if they do not particularly want to move away from the estate they could move into another house on the remainder of the estate that may well become vacant?
Mr. Karran: Well, as I say, there are 56 houses wanting doing and there are 108 anyway, so there is the possibility of being held back because a tenant will not move out — it is a bit of a red herring. When do you intend to do the rest of the
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2349
estate?
Mr. Peers: It is a phased programme, of course, on this; this is phase 1. It is then up to the Local Government Board when we consulted them and then this hon. Court how the scheme progresses whether we do the remainder in groups in phases of 56 or whether it is less because of capital costs. But what we have said we initially tried rehousing these people in transit accommodation, if I could put it — houses in the area, because we recognise their wishes. We could not achieve it within the time scale so we have widened the catchment area, but obviously, if somebody did not for one reason or another, particularly strong reason, want to move off the estate, if one of the houses elsewhere became empty we would put them in that as transit accommodation if that was their particular wish provided we had one. We want to keep them as near to their present residence as possible and as near to their neighbours. We do not want to separate everybody unless it becomes absolutely essential. So far we do not seem to be in that situation, but who knows?
Mr. Karran: Another question, Your Excellency. We have been told by the member of the Local Government Board that it was going to cost £40,000 each for 14 houses at Anagh Coar. Can the learned Clerk tell me, why is it not possible to buy Ballaquark houses and Ballakinnish houses in the area of £20,000 and £25,000? What would be wrong if they had been bought instead of a project of £40,000? Are there structural reasons?
Mr. Peers: I cannot answer that, Your Excellency; I do not whether the hon. Chairman of the Local Government Board could. That sort of thing has been mentioned of buying houses that are now on the market, private build, but we still have a similar position, I will submit, to the hon. Court that if, instead of building new houses, it is buying new ones when the stated policy is refurbishment there could be an element of conflict. That is the best I can do, Your Excellency.
Mr. Delaney: Could I ask another question, Your Excellency, because of the non-clarification of the question — the learned Town Clerk used it, the hypo- thetical situation. Could he take it from my hon. colleague, the member for East Douglas, Mr. Martin, myself and other members who have asked questions, that the people in the houses in the flats at 1 King Street do exist and are not hypothetical, and will he undertake to look into the situation that is highlighted here so these people may be accommodafed satisfactorily to themselves and to the council before legal action is needed to take to allow the contractors to finish the contract?
Mr. Peers: I give the assurance, Your Excellency.
The Governor: Hon. members, then I call upon the chairman to reply.
Mr. Walker: Thank you, Your Excellency. I do not think there is anything I can add to the subject of transit houses that has not already been covered either by myself this morning or by the Town Clerk himself in his replies except to say
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved T2350 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 in round terms that property management is always quite a difficult area. It is one that becomes a political football because you are dealing with individuals who are concerned, and I think, although the Corporation have got a problem and I would not contend otherwise, I do not believe that their problem is greater than other housing authorities. Perhaps they do have 340 or whatever numbers of people on their housing list, but it has to be said that they have something like 150 or 160 re-lets a year, so if you divide the number of re-lets into the number of persons on the list you get some idea of how long a person in need would remain on the housing list. If you think of Braddan Commissioners — and I suppose we tend to shrug off the small commissioners — they have two re-lets a year on average and they have 30 persons on their housing list, and I would suggest that those persons on the Braddan housing list face a more dire future than those on the Corporation's housing list. I think it is important to keep this in perspective. As far as the hon. member Mr. Gilbey's comments are concerned, I would not doubt that the private sector would not spend this money on their properties. I think it is a shame they would not, and if we look round down-town Douglas, down- town Peel and down-town Castletown, I am sure that we could all make a case for the private individual to spend this sort of money on its properties. (Members: Hear, hear.) It seems to me very unfortunate that he is not, and as far as windows are concerned I weekly approve, under our modernisation scheme, re-windowing of houses up to three or three-and-a-half thousand pounds per house, P.V.C. windows; it is not an extreme amount of money. If we are going in for good quality repairs and hopefully save on maintenance in the future, then we have to pay for it. I suppose it is a political question whether or not we should be saving on maintenance in the future. If we save on maintenance in the future it is less work for the painters, it is less work for the joiners, it is less work for the brickies. Let us recognise this. It is easy to sit here and say 'No maintenance in the future', but it has a special impact and I think it is something that we should keep an eye on. But good refurbishment costs a lot of money and in our report — and I think most of the comments that have been this afternoon are covered in the report of the Local Government Board to hon. members — we list all the work that needs to be done and it is major. The houses in Hillside Avenue, which this first petition refers to, are built of good Manx traditional materials: stones and mortar or probably stones and sand now. They require proper insulation, exterior weather-proofing and all the rest of it and you do not get it for nothing. My hon. colleague, Mr. Brown, has said that this Government has spent almost £5 million on refurbishment of local authority property over the last few years and I do believe that it is money well spent. I am just referring again to the private landlord; we should not pretend that he would take his tenants out, that he would pay for their accommodation somewhere else for the period of refurbishment, pay all their removal expenses, give them a rent-free holiday and move them back in again, but that is a cost, I believe, that Government have got to pay to keep the peace. I cannot put it any more bluntly than that and I think it is a cost that we have to face up to. If there is the individual who does not want his house refurbished who is in the middle of the row, then that is unfortunate, but I do not believe that a prudent property owner could allow one property in a row to go unrefurbished because it would have effects on the neighbouring properties and I believe the tenant has to be persuaded to move. I do believe that in this particular instance the
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Refurbishment of Dwellings on Hills Estate, Douglas - Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2351 contractor could start on Hillside Avenue at no detriment to himself straightaway, because he will not start on all 14 properties at once, so a period of time will elapse when a further three properties can be emptied and so on and give him the flexibility that he needs. My hon. friend Mr. Karran again commented, I think, on the sort of refurbishment that is being carried out, and I would say to him that all he hears is not right. He talks about building walls on three-inch paths. Can I suggest to him that when that allegation was made investigations were carried out and it was found that the foundations were good. If he says it makes good financial sense to take up one concrete foundation to put in another concrete foundation to build a wall on, well, I would have to disagree with him. He did tell us doors had been hung by two screws and putty and all the rest of it — I think that the hon. member himself was a joiner working on Corporation property, and I hope that he was not in fact speaking from experience! As far as the usage of Manx materials is concerned, the Local Government Board do try and encourage the using of local materials and local products but I think we do have to be aware that a concern is being expressed. One of those concerns is the use of P.V.C. which has not been tried and tested over a long period of years, and I remember well the Flexel heating situation were everybody thought it was a great thing and it was put in and, at the end of the day, proved to be a disaster. I believe it is easy to do the popular thing, it is easy to go to all one firm in the Isle of Man who makes plastic window frames, but I think that we have to be careful, we have to be prudent, we have to ask for aggrement certificates and all the rest of it. The only other thing I would like to add is about the purchase of other houses to use either as transit houses or as local authority houses. The Onchan Commissioners have approached us on a number of occasions for authority to purchase dwellings and the Local Government Board have said 'no' because these are the sort of dwellings that we feel ought to be available for people in the private sector to purchase, and if the Corporation are to take up 14 or 15 or 20 small dwellings, there will be that many less for the new buyers. There may be plenty on the market at this moment in time, it may be a changed situation but there is a policy there to be looked at and I would suggest there be a debate on this in this hon. Court. Your Excellency, I think I have covered most of the points that have not already been touched on and would beg to move that this resolution be accepted.
The Governor: Hon.members, I put to you the petition moved by the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board at item 51. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS TO BORROW A SUM FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS ON SPRING VALLEY ESTATE, DOUGLAS — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 52, as amended.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, shall I formally move that Standing Orders be
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Replacement of Windows on Spring Valley Estate, Douglas - Approved T2352 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 suspended for item 52 to be taken? Again we have to suspend Standing Orders.
The Governor: Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown: I formally move, sir:
That in accordance with Standing Order 209 the provisions of Standing Order 195(3) be waived to enable the revised report circulated to Members to be substituted for the report originally referred to in the resolution.
The Governor: Thank you. Is that seconded?
A Member: I beg to second.
The Governor: Is that agreed? (It was agreed.) Then we are talking to the amended item number 52. Hon. members, do you wish it moved? (It was agreed.) I call on the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board to move.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas for authority to borrow £61,500, repayable within 20 years, to defray the cost of replacing windows in 26 dwellings on the Spring Valley Estate, Douglas, being Phase 1 of a scheme, I beg to move:
That the prayer of the petition be modified and as modified the same is hereby granted, subject to the reduction of the amount to be borrowed from £61,500 to £51,000.
Your Excellency, this is in relation to the replacement of windows of 26 dwellings on the Spring Valley estate in Douglas. It is the first phase of a programme which will lead over perhaps four years to the replacement of the windows on the whole estate. The works are part of the on-going programme of improving public authority houses. The petitioners have decided to accept the lowest tender in the sum of £51,838 and they expressed a wish to negotiate with the successful tenderer for additional works to meet the sum of £61,500 which had been set aside in their estimates. Although the Local Government Board were sympathetic to that proposal, the Treasury wish to limit the scheme to the proposed 26 units and, in order to get the petition before Tynwald this month, the Local Government Board have recommended the petition be modified to allow for borrowings not exceeding the sum of £51,900 which covers the original tender. Your Excellency, I beg to move.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Duggan: On this point, Your Excellency, I think it is very wrong for the Treasury to dictate, really, on this point because we are only talking about £9,000 or £10,000, and when people do tender and you get some tenders cheap and we can do extra houses I think we should be allowed to do them. I think the Corporation should have been allowed to do these extra houses, because if you leave it until later years it is only going to cost more-rising costs. It is a bad policy. As 1 say,
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Replacement of Windows on Spring Valley Estate, Douglas — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2353
they have tendered very cheaply and we should let them crack on with extra properties.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I expected the reply from my hon. colleague from over the Styx with his last comments. What I want to know is, when we are talking about £61,500, will these things be inspected? Will there be a Clerk of the Works on the job? As I say, this is what I want to know. I think it is quite wrong; it is public money and we must not penny-pinch by any means but we must make sure that we are getting value for money. We are employing tradesmen that come in vans and not come on the backs of horses and that is what I am after — value for money, Your Excellency.
Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, I do not think I can allow this to pass. The comments made by the hon. member Mr. Duggan have indicated that he feels that the Treasury have taken the wrong action in respect of this particular item. What he has to remember — that there are other items for which the budgeted amount was not sufficient and we have in those circumstances allowed the expenditure to be greater than that. Whilst he sees this one item in isolation, I think he ought to take a broader view and see what has happened overall with regard to local authority borrowings. Now it is quite easy to say that on this one the tenders were low and it might have been possible to deal with other properties. I wonder if we should all take the view that, if that were the case, we should allow the expenditure to creep up, against which we should have said, perhaps, that the other project which had not come within the budgetary figure should not have been allowed to go ahead. We have to take swings and roundabouts, Your Excellency, and I think it is not unreasonable for the Treasury to emphasise to members of the Court the point that I think the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Walker, made earlier — that we have got to keep an eye on budgetary disciplines in the overall sphere of things, and for that reason I think that the Treasury line was not unreasonable. If we are going to allow extra expenditure on one front we have to bear in mind what our overall budget is and perhaps where it is feasible and possible, as in this case, to cut back in other directions.
The Governor: Hon. members, I sense that you do not necessarily this time want to hear the hon. Town Clerk as the issues are not so much his as the House's, so I call upon the chairman to reply.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I can confirm that there will be adequate supervision on these works, that there will be registered tradesmen to actually carry • out the works. I would say that all my hon.friends and colleagues are not cowboys, there are very many good tradesmen and I am sure that some of them will be employed on these works. I think the other points have been well covered, sir.
The Governor: I put to you the petition standing in the name of the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board as item 52. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for the Replacement of Windows on Spring Valley Estate, Douglas - Approved T2354 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
PETITION OF THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS TO BORROW A SUM FOR REWIRING ON WILLASTON ESTATE, DOUGLAS — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 53.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas for authority to borrow £90,000, repayable within 20 years, to defray the cost of rewiring 134 dwellings on Willaston Estate, Douglas, I beg to move:
That the prayer of the petition be and the same is hereby granted.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
PETITION OF THE CASTLETOWN TOWN COMMISSIONERS TO BORROW A SUM FOR REFURBISHING DWELLINGS AT JAMES ROAD, CASTLETOWN — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 54.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency; with respect to the Petition of the Castletown Town Comissioners for authority to borrow £100,040, repayable within 21 years, to defray the cost of refurbishment of six dwellings at James Road, Castletown, I beg to move:
That the prayer of the petition be and the same is hereby granted.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
PETITION OF THE RAMSEY TOWN COMMISSIONERS TO BORROW A SUM FOR PLUMBING AND HEATING IMPROVEMENTS IN 35 RAMSEY DWELLINGS — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 55.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Ramsey Town
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Douglas to Borrow a Sum for Rewiring on Willaston Estate, Douglas — Approved Petition of the Castletown Town Commissioners to Borrow a Sum for Refurbishing Dwellings at James Road, Castletown — Approved Petition of the Ramsey Town Commissioners to Borrow a Sum for Plumbing and Heating Improvements in 35 Ramsey Dwellings — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2355
Commissioners for authority to borrow £100,000, repayable within 20 years, to defray the cost of plumbing and heating improvements in 35 dwellings at Brookhill Road, Seamount Road and Cronk Elfin, Ramsey, I beg to move;
That the Prayer of the Petition be and the same is hereby granted.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
PETITION OF THE RAMSEY TOWN COMMISSIONERS TO BORROW A SUM FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS AT CRONK ELFIN, RAMSEY - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 56.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, with respect to the Petition of the Ramsey Town Commissioners for authority to borrow £58,500, repayable within 20 years, to defray the cost of replacing windows in 26 dwellings at Cronk Elfin, Ramsey, I beg to move;
That the Prayer of the Petition be and the same is hereby granted.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
The Governor: That concludes the Petitions.
FIXED PENALTY (PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: We revert, hon. members, to the Agenda and to item 31. I call on the Chairman of the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board to move.
Mr. Quirk: Thank you, Your Excellency, I beg to move —
That the Fixed Penalty (Procedure) Regulations 1986, made by the Highway and Transport Board under Sections 32 and 39 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1985, be and the same are hereby approved.
Section 32 of the Road Traffic (Regulation) Act 1985 will provide from 1st January 1987 for the discharge of liability conviction for certain traffic offences by payment of a fixed penalty. When a police constable or a traffic warden — and this is made reference to in the Bill irrespective of the decision of the court some time ago — finds that an offence to which this section applies has been committed he may issue to
Petition of the Ramsey Town Commissioners to Borrow a Sum for the Replacement of Windows at Cronk Elfin, Ramsey — Approved Fixed Penalty (Procedure) Regulations 1986 — Approved T2356 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 the person committing the offence a prescribed notice in writing or, if no person is present, may affix it to a vehicle. The recipient then has the option of paying the fixed penalty of £10, set by the 1985 Act, within seven days following the date of the notice or of receiving a summons and having the offence dealt with in the normal manner. The payment of a fixed penalty should be made to the Clerk to the Justices. The fixed penalty tickets are issued for offences in connection with causing a vehicle to wait in a restricted road, loading or unloading a vehicle in a restricted road, the contravention of a parking place order, causing a vehicle to rest opposite or within 22 metres of a stationary vehicle on a road under 8.5 metres width, that is seven metres if it is a one-way street, causing a vehicle to rest on the offside of a road facing the on-coming traffic during the hours of darkness, causing a vehicle to rest within seven metres of a junction, parking wholly or partly on a footway or central reservation, causing a vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause unnecessary obstruction and causing a vehicle to stand on a road during the hours of darkness otherwise than with nearside close to the edge of the carriageway, driving or parking a vehicle on a prohibited or restricted road, contravening a 'LP turn order or contravening a one-way order. Now having given a resume of the fixed penalty system it is a necessary requisite thereto to prescribe the fixed penalty notice, place of payment of fixed penalty and the procedural requirements in connection therewith which is the purpose of the regulation before this hon. Court. Regulation 2 prescribes the notice which is in the form set out in the schedule. Regulation 3 requires a copy of any notice issued to be sent to the Clerk of the Justices and under Regulation 4 it lays down the place where the fixed penalty is payable — the offices of the Clerk to the Justices — and the various conditions for payment, which are self-explanatory. Regulation 5(1) requires the police to notify the Clerk to the Justices of proceedings and under paragraph (2) no payment of fixed penalty is to be accepted thereafter. Regulation 6 deals with the issue of receipts and informing the police. The board are confident that the introduction of the fixed penalty method of dealing with traffic offences will be of considerable advantage in time saving, not only the police's and court's but also the driver's, and I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I beg to second the resolution and in doing so 1 would point out what 1 think is a very important part of this fixed penalty system, and that is in relation to the junction parking which was talked about so much in the previous resolution and, as the chairman has already indicated in his brief, parking within seven metres of a junction will be subject to a fixed penalty fine.
The Governor: Does any other member wish to speak? I call on Mr. Quirk to reply.
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I have nothing further to add, so it seems to be explanatory and I am very pleased that the Court accepted this.
The Governor: Hon. members, will those members in favour of item 31 say aye; those against say no.
Fixed Penalty (Procedure) Regulations 1986 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2357
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys —
For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, J.H. Kneale, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Faragher, Brown, Cretney, Delaney, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving and the Speaker — 17
Against: Mr. Duggan — 1
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 17 votes being cast in favour and one vote against.
In the Council —
For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Dr. Mann, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin — 7
Against: Nil
The Governor: In the Council seven votes cast in favour and none against; the motion therefore carries.
ELECTION RULES (AMENDMENT) (No.3) ORDER 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 32. Representation of the People Acts 1951 to 1985. I call on the Chairman of Executive Council to move.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, this order deals with two matters relating to the general election later this year. Paragraph 2 of the order amends the election rules so that the Governor need not issue a writ for the holding of a by-election if a casual vacancy occurs at any time between now and the dissolution of the House of Keys in October. This will remove the need for expenditure on a by-election during the limited time available in the life of the present House. Paragraph 3 of the order arises from strong representations made by the returning officers. Hon. members will recall that under the Election Rules (Amendment) Order 1986 approved by Tynwald at the May sitting the returning officers are required, so far as practicable, to proceed continuously with counting the votes on the day of the election until at least midnight. The returning officers contend that it would be in the best interests of all concerned — the candidates, their agents and the election staff — to permit the adjournment of the count at an appropriate time until the following day if the count under the new single transferable vote system becomes particularly lengthy or complex. The Governor in Council has agreed to reinstate a provision of the principal Act of 1951 under which, with the agreement of each candidate or counting agent present at the count, the count may be adjourned before midnight on the day of the poll until 9 a.m. on the following day. After midnight
Election Rules (Amendment) (No.3) Order 1986 — Approved T2358 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 the returning officer then will have the authority, the full discretion, to adjourn the count without consultation until 9 a.m. on the following day. Your Excellency, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
Mr. Lowey: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I wonder how many members have actually checked back on the order that came before us at the last but one sitting, which actually we debated to some degree, about specifically the count taking place on the same day. I remember the remarks very well that that was the way the Government two months ago felt it was the way they wished it to go and here we seem to have the dog wagging the tail. I may be being a bit unfair there but it certainly looks that way. We pay these people, presumably, to do this job on behalf of the people of the Isle of Man and we were to understand that if there was a problem then we would look at accountants or whatever and I think that we deserve an explanation from the Chairman of Executive Council which, to some degree, he has given to us, but I must say I am not happy, even allowing for the point in that it deals with the agreement of the candidates that the count can be put off until the next day, because one wonders then, do you take a vote of candidates if there are six candidates? Can it get into turmoil because there is total disagreement? And I quite honestly believe that the count should continue that night until the count is completed and I shall be voting against this order.
Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, after midnight it is the next day.
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, a keen observation by a gentleman who has been in the Government so long, so we learn something while we have been here! (Laughter) Your Excellency, dealing with that point made, we accept the explanation. Obviously we realise the difficulties involved, but I am interested in this ballot which is going to take place by the candidates, as has been pointed out by the member. A lot of constituencies will have several candidates; only two, in most of them, could be elected, therefore the two successful candidates who are going into the count after the first couple of ballots are counted will be, of course, wanting to get it completed and the other members might feel like saying, 'What the heck anyhow, I am losing so I will come back the following morning'. It does not seem a proper way to go about an election at all. There should be quite clear specific rules.
The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? Mr. Karran followed by Mr. Walker.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I can see what my hon. colleague is on about but what I am concerned about is the by-elections, the position that it is one month now should be substituted by four months and it seems that it simply is because of a financial aspect. I am very concerned over this whole preferential voting; the principle of having to give second and third preferences when an individual only wants to give one preference has gone out of the window. The right of the individual just to put one preference down has gone out of the window. Now we are talking about if because of the price of a by-election, there are only four months to run
Election Rules (Amendment) (No.3) Order 1986 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2359 before a general election we will not have an election — what happens next year? Do we go for a year? What price do we put on democracy? This is what concerns me. What concerns me is, will there be an order next year saying, well, we will make it eight months because it is not really commercially feasible to have a by-election in four months, he is not hardly in the seat before he is fighting another election? That is what I am concerned about and I think it is a bad thing. Mr. Walker: I was just going to say, Your Excellency, it is all very well one member saying there should be strict rules to go by, but the returning officers have always had the flexibility in the past to determine when to stop the count and leave it until the next morning and I believe that that is a responsibility that should remain with the returning officers, and for us to say you that can stop at midnight or after but you cannot stop at a quarter to I think is a bit of a nonsense quite honestly. If I could just respond to the hon. member, Mr. Karran, when he talks about the single transferable vote and perhaps it is not being the right thing, I would just say to him that he is not going to keep the tide back at this stage, sir! (Laughter)
The Governor: I call on the Chairman of Executive Council to reply. Dr. Mann: Yes, Your Excellency, there would appear to be two points raised in the comments. Firstly, concerning by-elections, of course until the recent changes in the law it never used to be possible to have a by-election in the summer months anyway, and although it is extremely unlikely that a by-election would arise between now and the general election, such a by-election would have to be held under the old rules and not the new ones as I understand it, and that person would never in fact be able to really take his seat, so from that point of view it does seem to be a bit ridiculous to allow even the remote possibility. As far as when a count stops, of course people feel very strongly on this and I, personally, would go all the way for ensuring that the count finishes the same night if possible, but we have to recognise it in this system. There are definite points where the count can stop with the agreement of the candidates and it is no good making fun of whether you have got to have the agreement of the candidates, you have to have the agreement of the candidates to pass each stage, but once you have passed each stage you cannot go back, and if that stage happens to be at ten to midnight it does make sense to allow the flexibility, at least of the returning officer, to adjourn the count until the morning. I would consider this situation extremely unsatisfactory and I only hope that the likelihood of it arising is very small, but I think we have to be reasonable and if there is a count that obviously is going to be complex it is in everybody's interest to ensure that it is done properly. Therefore, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
The Governor: Hon. members I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Executive Council at item 32 on the Agenda. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
JURBY DAY (ROAD) ORDER 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 33. Highway Act 1927.
Jurby Day (Road) Order 1986 — Approved T2360 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I beg to move —
That the Jurby Day (Road) Order 1986, made by the Highway and Transport Board under the provisions of Section 20 of the Highway Act 1927, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY (PUBLIC ACCESS LAND) ORDER 1986 - MOTION DEFEATED
The Governor: Item 34. Forestry Act 1984. I call on the Chairman of the Isle of Man Forestry, Mines and Land Board to move.
Mr. Ward: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 be and the same is hereby approved.
Mr Ward: Your Excellency, Section 10(1) of the Forestry Act 1984 empowers the board by order, subject to Tynwald approval, to designate an area of land by reference to a map which is vested in the board and is managed by the board so that it may be enjoyed by the public in its natural state and not for the purpose of forestry and not being uncultivated, mountain or moorland, to which area Section 9 of the Act applies. The effect of an order made under Section 10(1) is to exclude, with regard to the land so designated, the obligations of the occupier of the land under the Occupier's Liability Act 1964 in respect of his visitors, persons going on the land with the occupiers expressed or implied consent. This exclusion does not apply to buildings or structures on the land. Designation of land under Section 10(1) thus puts the visitor in a similar position to that of anyone exercising the right of access to the board's mountains or moorland who is also excluded from the provisions of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1964 by virtue of Section 9 of the Forestry Act 1984. The board still owes a duty to persons going on land designated under Section 10(1), but one more appropriate to extensive areas such as the national glens or the Ayres which are managed in their natural state and available for enjoyment by the public. It will be noted that not all of the board's amenity properties are included in the order, which applies only to land managed in its natural state. Thus, for example, Laxey Glen Gardens, Upper Silverdale and the children's playground area within Glen Helen are not covered by the order, and the obligation imposed by the Public Liability Act 1964 will continue to apply to such properties. There are one or two little points that I would like to clear while I am on my feet, sir. There seems to have been some sort of misapprehension about our duty with regard to the glens and the properties which are enumerated in the Act. We
Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2361 are not by any stretch of imagination going any way to absolving ourselves as a board from our Government charge and responsibility with regard to the maintenance of glens and lands under us to the very best of our ability. I take it, as a simple person, we are talking solely about degrees of liability. The order covers solely the degree of liability due to natural hazards. I believe, sir, that the question of liability is a very complex and legal problem and it may very well be that the learned Attorney-General would be able to give his legal opinion on some of the questions. I move, sir.
Mr. Gilbey: I beg to second.
Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, one of the greater disasters in my political life has been trying to get the Occupiers' Liability Bill through the House of Keys last year. Hon. members are not very keen on providing a 'common duty of care', I believe it is called, to people who are trespassers on land and not visitors. I understand it, sir, that the Forestry Board here are saying, in accordance with the 1984 Forestry Act, first of all Section 9 and then Section 10, where they come to Tynwald with an order together with maps showing an area of land where this common duty of care will not apply to persons who are not visitors, because the order declares that people who visit these areas, I think it was said, for recreational, procreational or educational reasons, these people —
Mr. Ward: Leave it at that!
Mr. Irving: Those were the words used! These people, sir, are not to be regarded as visitors although in effect they are visitors; even though there may not be a specific invitation issued to these people, there is an implied invitation to people to use this land. I hope what I am saying meets with the approval of the learned Attorney- General, but I must say that I believe that the Forestry Board should not have this means of getting away from what I regard a duty of care to people who use these areas under the control of the Forestry Board.
The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, it may be helpful if I do just enlarge on what the mover has said. The effect of this order, put in the simplest possible terms, is that visitors to the glens and other lands of the Forestry Board which are described in the order would in future, if the order is approved, enter onto those glens and lands at their own risk — that is the simplest way to put it — certainly at their own risk as regards natural hazards. Now the only responsibility of the board will therefore be to take action to guard visitors from serious hazards, particularly man-made hazards which are known to the board but which would not be known to visitors, such, for example, as holes being dug in the ground. The precise responsibility of the board, if this order is made, cannot be easily determined because it would depend on the circumstances of each case and a slightly higher duty is regarded as necessary in the cases where children are known to frequent an area than if it is only adults. However, putting the matter in general terms a visitor to these glens and other lands would have to take the lands as he finds them and, as has already been said, the same principle already applies under Section 9 of the Act to the mountains, so basically visitors would go on to these lands at their own
Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2362 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 risk and would have to accept the natural hazards of the lands as he finds them. The only duty of the board would be to ensure that if it became known to them that any man-made hazards in particular were known to the board but would not be known to visitors, they would be taken care of in some way. Basically, therefore, this is at your own risk.
Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I thank the hon. chairman and the hon. Attorney- General who have amply demonstrated and illustrated the points that I was going to raise: the fact of course that the duty of care has been removed from these 1 particular areas excepting in the cases, I gather, of buildings and structures. Could I be assured, then, that in this particular instance that steps which are already there, old man-made steps also, would be removed from that duty of care?
The Speaker: Your Excellency, I have looked at the list of designated lards embodied in this order and I find such glens as the Dhoon at Maughold, Ballaglass, Lhergy Frissel at Ramsey, all places popular resorts, all places amongst the others here encouraged by the Tourist Board as places of resort for tourists coming to this Island. I find it strange that, with that positive encouragement with specialised leaflets to that end, we should now be saying that you come on to these properties at your own risk, that you are in fact by invitation nevertheless a trespasser, the point the hon. member has so adequately made. Now I can understand this in respect of what are described as the hill lands where people wander over relatively huge areas and where it would be impossible for the board to ensure a reasonable degree of care to ensure the people's safety as they wander over areas which even contain mineshafts. Now the situation must surely be different in respect of these glens, and while I accept that, in the case of Laxey, there is an exclusion because there happens'to be a children's recreational centre there, in the case of Glen Helen there is also that same type of exclusion, I cannot accept the fact that glens which are portrayed by us as places to which people should go to realise just how beautiful the Island is — and we do this through the Tourist Board, we do it through our railways and at the end of the day we are saying to them — and we might as well put a big notice up over all the glens — 'you enter at your own risk'. This is the sort of thing that in the past I had expected of Crown interests in the Isle of Man but never expected of Manx Government interests and, to me, it is an unacceptable departure from responsibility. It is taking off the shoulders of a Government department, whatever department it is, responsibilities which we are prepared to put on an individual and I do not regard that as right and proper. Exclusions for Government must be justified much more clearly than is being done in this case and must be much more acceptable as common justice than this is.
Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I will be brief because I think I am going to repeat what has been said by Mr. Speaker, but it strikes me also as being somewhat incongruous that the Isle of Man Forestry Board for years has spent a considerable sum of money maintaining the glens, and what we mean by 'maintaining' is in actual fact making structures and doing construction work within the glens. The footpaths have been done. There has been considerable stepping put into glens and if we take the one, looking across there to the hon. member for Glenfaba, the
Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2363
Waterfall Glen, I am concerned when the Attorney says that we are removing some element of care — the bridges, the wooden structures which are across there. On Thursday evening next — I might as well get a plug in! — there is the annual event down in the Colby Glen which also crops up here where we are actually inviting people to walk down into the glen to an annual function and, quite honestly, I think that this exclusion, as Mr. Speaker says, is an exclusion which should not take place ik in our glens, though I think it is acceptable on the common land which we would I accept as the mountains.
a Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, I think we should keep this in perspective and • I hope, perhaps, I can put the minds of the hon. Mr. Speaker and the hon. member for Rushen at rest. There will, I am convinced, be no let-up in the care and attention which the Forestry Board will spend and devote to making sure the glens are very safe and well looked after. I think the concern of Government should be two-fold: one is the recent trend where legal claim settlement, often for minor damage, can be astronomic and the second one is the escalating rate of premiums in an insurance market which, if Government did not take some limitation on its liability, would pose an increasing strain on our finances. I think that were we not to have some defence such as this legal form of words, the pressure then would be on the Forestry Board to put into the glens such artificial safety mechanisms that it would largely destroy the beauty of the glens and the naturalness of the glens. The most beautiful parts of the Island — the reasons why people go there is because they have things like rivers, waterfalls, steep paths and bridges — all potentially dangerous things. Small children can always get into trouble and I think that this is a reasonable thing to say to people, 'Take care. We are making them as safe as we can but we are not accepting unlimited liability for what you do in them'.
Mr. Walker: Accepting the argument put forward by the hon. member for Peel, Your Excellency, what we should be doing is altering our legislation because what we are saying is that the private landowner — it is okay to subject him to this sort of burden — and I believe it is a burden — but the Government should be exempt and I cannot accept that. I think that that is a wrong principle. I cannot support this, although I understand the arguments, but I do think that we should be realistic and understand that they apply to people outside and that they have not got the same facilities we have.
LMr. Faragher: Your Excellency, I would echo the sentiments expressed by my 'hon. colleague Mr. Walker. Indeed we are living in a world which is very willing .'to turn to litigation at the drop of a hat for any injury or accident which is suffered / whilst on anybody's property or in anybody's vehicle or anything else, but this particular public notice put before us today, I think, really concentrates the mind on the problem that now faces us. Are we to say that our limitation on liability should terminate at the glens of the Isle of Man? What about the cliffs? What about the beaches? What if somebody trips over a rock on the beach? Are we to say that that should have been signposted, floodlit, warned against? We have got to be extremely careful that what we are seeing here today is not the start of a whole list of exemptions which this Government would need to take in order to protect itself quite reasonably against claims arising in the future. A
Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2364 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 private individual has to assume responsibility for his own actions on many, many occasions and we should not suddenly assume that Government is going to become liable for any possible accident that is going to occur at any time in any place. We are going down this road of protecting people from the consequences of their own action. We will finish up, as has been said, with lights in the glens. We will finish up with notices left, right and centre `Do not trip over this', 'Beware of that'. `Do not go down here after darkness'. You cannot do that. I think we have got something fundamentally wrong with out legislation, as my colleague has suggested. It is fundamentally wrong and we are going to get ourselves into all sorts of a tangle with legislation such as this in the very near future.
The Governor: The hon. member for Michel, followed by the hon. member for Glenfaba.
Mr. Cannan: I will be brief, Your Excellency. I just rise to concur with the remarks of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cringle and Mr. Walker. There are glens here in the Parish of Ballaugh and Kirk Michael which for all my lifetime people have gone through and I doubt if there has been a single claim made for liability. But people are reasonable and if they do make a claim on public liability, then they have got to convince the court that it was not their own negligence, that there was something desperately wrong, and I do not really see that what we are trying to do here is to destroy to a certain extent the freedom we have to move about our glens and our countryside reasonably freely. The public liability aspect is what we all accept. We even have it on our own home insurance where, if somebody comes into our garden and can show that they wilfully tripped over and broke their leg, it was partly our fault. But the insurance companies will fight it and I think that it is the duty of Government not to opt out, because once they opt out, everybody starts opting out and our tourists will no longer have the freedoms on this beautiful island which we are constantly advertising. I urge the Court to reject this order.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I think there are certain misunderstandings about this. I think the learned Attorney would confirm that the position of the board is not at all the same as that of most private landowners. The difference is that the board are inviting people into their glens through advertisements and all kinds of things. Now the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Walker, I do not think has advertisements inviting people to go into his farm for recreational purposes, so the situation is quite different. He is not actually running a business, which the Forestry Board is, of inviting people to have public access on to his property and neither are most other landowners. Now the Forestry Board is doing that and, as they are doing that, it could be said that they have a higher degree of liability. Let us look at the liability. It falls into two aspects: first of all works that the board has done, like building a bridge. Now if a bridge at Glen Maye, where the hon. member, Mr. Cringle, is going, was to collapse through the negligence of the board this order would not excuse them at all. It is not intended it should because it particularly excludes buildings and structures on the land and a bridge would be a structure. But what it does exclude them from is the careless person, who although if you go to Glen Maye where it is perfectly clear there are very steep banks and if you go on them you may well fall down them, it excludes them from liabilities
Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2365 to people who do that, and if there was not an exclusion, as the hon. member for Peel has made so clear, the Forestry Board might have to either put up notices everywhere 'Beware of this bank' or they might have to put up railings to stop people falling down.
A Member: Nonsense!
Mr. Gilbey: No it is not nonsense, it is absolutely true under the law as it stands today with people getting ever more litigious. This is the sad thing, because up until now we have not usually had the spate of litigation in the Isle of Man that is happening elsewhere, but I can assure you it is coming more here; just as it went from America to England, I am sure it will spread here and we have see it in other aspects. All this does is to ensure that the board do not have to put up all kinds of artificial barriers and warnings regarding things that are completely natural like the banks — it is no good Mr. Irving shaking his head because this is the correct situation. I am sure none of us would want to force the Forestry Board to spoil the glens, as the hon. member for Peel has said, by all kinds of artificial warnings and railings and so on. This is really putting the glens in the same position from the point of view of natural dangers as the hill lands and no-one would expect the board to have notices all around the hill lands because there are precipices there, there are swamps there. Is each one to be marked saying 'Do not step here because there is a swamp'? No, we accept it with the hill lands and it is equally logical to accept the same situation for the glens, but it in no way absolves the board from any defective workmanship such as a bridge that might collapse or if the loo at Glen Maye had the ceiling collapse while the hon. member for Rushen was there, it would still be liable. So I do hope hon. members will support this order to which great thdught has been given.
Mr. Brown: Yes, Your Excellency, I think we really have here a major principle that we have got to sort out. We have got this Occupiers' Liability Act which, let us remember, has only been enacted recently by the House of Keys (Interruptions) Has it not?
Mr. Delaney: That is the one we lost.
Mr. Brown: I am sorry, that is the one we tried to enact, but I think the point is we have a major point here that we need to sort out, because again here we are going in isolation. We have got the Forestry Board and the hon. member has just covered some points there, but then we also have, for example, the Government Property Trustees with the Laxey area, the castles, then you go to the Highway Board, then you go to all the others, the National Trust, and so it goes on and I would have thought, Your Excellency, that it is a point that maybe this order should be turned down and that we should ask Executive Council to actually look at what is Government's policy regarding this problem because, quite honestly, if this happens and nothing is done with anybody else, we resolve the problem for one section of Government, we are not accepting it for the private sector, we are not accepting it for the other or whatever it may be and it is all fragmented, and I would have thought something that again, as a Government, we need a policy on whether
Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2366 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
this sort of thing needs to be done right across the board for all departments of Government. I would have thought the only way to have done that would have been to say: do not accept this order; Executive Council, please come back with recommendations either to the October Tynwald or to the next House' because something has got to be sorted out. It is not that simple if we just pass this.
Mr. Quirk: Can I make a point of clarification?
The Governor: Yes, Mr. Quirk.
Mr. Quirk: It has been said here that the various boards will be brought into this. This is the situation that the Highway Board is in at the present time where we are not liable for any damage which is caused to a person unless it is through bad workmanship or a situation which is our fault and I think this Bill comes into that category. I raised the question just to talk about steps particularly, but I do feel that members want to be very careful about this, because if we bring in legislation which will bring us in line with the United Kingdom, we may be in a lot of serious trouble.
Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I just want to be very brief but I would like to refer to something that the hon. member for Castletown has just said. Surely - and he mentioned the Government Property Trustees and the things that you have round the Island — if an admission fee is charged there is a public liability. (Interruption) I know, but there is. If you charge an admission fee for anyone to go into a building or if it is a glen or whatever, you are liable if there is any accident.
Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I would like to know from the hon. mover, what sort of finance are we talking about as far as insurance cover? Obviously this has been done as a financial exercise and, also, can the hon. mover make it clear to this hon. Court that if an accident was to happen, if a youngster or somebody was running down a path in one of the designated glens and tripped over or lost his balance, what it means if we pass this order is that the Forestry Board would have no liability. If that youngster or person was walking down the glen and was holding on to the handrail and the handrail collapsed and he lost his balance, there would still be a liability on the Forestry Board. This is the simple situation that all it is doing is where there can be seen to be fault by the Forestry Board, the Forestry Board would be still liable; where it was an act of God, as they say, the case would be that there would be no liability on the part of the Forestry Board. If the hon. chairman could clarify that?
Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, may I amplify a question I posed to the hon. member? Is the hon. member saying that now a visitor — and I use 'visitor' in a sort of legal sense in terms of liability, that is a person who is invited — is the hon. member now saying by this order — and I think this is the critical point, sir - that a person who visits a glen will no longer be regarded as a visitor, he will be regarded as a trespasser? The reason my Bill failed, sir, was because I was asking for special treatment for trespassers. Will the hon. member confirm that he is now saying in a legal sense — and maybe the Attorney-General will agree with that —
Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 — Motion Defeated TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2367 a person who would be a visitor anywhere else is not a visitor here, he is a trespasser?
Mr. Delaney: On a point of order, Your Excellency, the hon. member knows his Bill failed through lack of votes. (Laughter)
The Governor: I call on the chairman to reply.
Mr. Ward: I did say, Your Excellency, that this was a pretty involved legal complex and I can only answer it in the way that I know and from the limited knowlege that I have got from a legal point of view, and I am sure the Attorney- General would correct me if I was wrong. With your permission, sir, I would answer . . . because all the questions are more or less linked, you will excuse me if I do not mention any particular person with a question. Let me start of first of all by thanking at least Dr. Moore, because I think he tried to put the thing into perspective and I think that was the situation that the Forestry Board found itself it in. I would like to make the point, if I may, that, as far as I know, the Forestry Board in this exercise and I think we have made it perfectly clear that when we talk about normal hazards — anything that the people who are responsible for the glen, that is, the Forestry Board or the land on which we go, whether it was a handrail as Mr. Karran said, whether it was a bridge, whether it was a constructed path or whether it was a set of steps — that liability would still maintain. Now I believe — and this is where I could be accused of being wrong - I do not think we are denying our sole liabilities in this particular exercise. As I said at the beginning, I believe that it is a degree of liability and I think that all had to do with what Dr. Moore was trying to put over. The thing is, as I understand it, that even if we had a trespasser on our land and he fell over and fell down a cliff there is a portion of liability which the Forestry Board would still be liable for. It is a matter of degrees of liability and the degree of coverage, I suppose, to some degree. I am sure the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong there, but the same applies that if a child or people using this particular land under these conditions did fall or did trip over a root, there is a degree of liability, I am sure, Mr. Attorney-General, that they would be right for. It is only a matter of degrees, is it not?
The Attorney-General: Well, it is a matter of degree but the essence of the liability to trespasers is that the occupier is not liable for the natural condition of the land unless there is some particular hazard which he knows about which the trespasser would not know about, so if a great hole is dug in a pathway and a trespasser falls into it, then liability could arise but —
Mr. Irving: Would these people be trespassers, sir?
The Attorney-General: Yes, in answer, Your Excellency, to the question which was raised by the hon. member Mr. Irving, the effect of this is to put the visitors to these areas of land in the same legal position as trespassers. That is from a legal point of view. That is correct, except of course, as has been said, in relation to buildings and structures and that is a very important exception.
Occupier's Liability (Public Access Land) Order 1986 — Motion Defeated T2368 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
The Governor: Mr. Ward, do you wish to say any more?
Mr. Ward: No, sir.
The Governor: Then, hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Isle of Man Forestry Mines and Lands Board at item 34 of the Agenda. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: In the Keys - For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Morrey, Dr. Moore and Mr. Cain —5
Against: Mr. Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. J.H. Kneale, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Faragher, Brown, May, Duggan, Cretney, Delaney, Martin, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving, Bell and the Speaker — 18
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with five votes being cast in favour and 18 votes against.
In the Council - For: Mr. Ward — 1
Against: The Lord Bishop, Mr. Lowey, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Radcliffe, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin —
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council, one vote cast in favour and seven against. The motion therefore fails to carry.
PROCEDURAL
The Governor: Hon. members, it is now 7 o'clock, which is the time that in principle we agreed earlier in the day that we would have a break. I am very conscious that we do not want to break for too long because people want to finish the day off, but I do think we need a break and sandwiches have been prepared. Can I propose 20 minutes as a break? We will come back at twenty past seven.
Mr. Ward: Watch that step when you go out! (Laughter)
The Court adjourned at 7 p.m.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1985 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1986 - APPROVED
The Governor: Item 35. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local
Procedural Local Government Act 1985 (Amendment) Order 1986 — Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2369
Government Board.
Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Local Government Act 1985 (Amendment) Order 1986 be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
ISLE OF MAN CIVIL SERVICE ORDER 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 36. I call upon H.M. Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Isle of Man Civil Service Order 1986, made by His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor on 1st July 1986, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY PROVISIONS) (APPLICATION) (No.1) ORDER 1986 — HOVERCRAFT ACT 1968 (APPLICATION) ORDER 1986 - MERCHANT SHIPPING (MASTERS AND SEAMEN) (APPLICATION) ORDER 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 37, Merchant Shipping. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Harbour Board.
Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
(a) That the Merchant Shipping (Safety Provisions) (Application) (No.1) Order 1986, made by the Harbour Board in exercise of powers conferred on the Board by Section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1985, be and the same is hereby approved.
(b) That the Hovercraft Act 1968 (Application) Order 1986, made by the Harbour Board in exercise of powers conferred on the Board by Section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1985, be and the same is hereby approved. Isle of Man Civil Service Order 1986 — Approved Merchant Shipping (Safety Provisions) (Application) (No.1) Order 1986 - Hovercraft Act 1968 (Application) Order 1986 - Merchant Shipping (Masters and Seamen) (Application) Order 1986 — Approved T2370 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
(c) That the Merchant Shipping (Masters and Seamen) Application) Order 1986, made by the Harbour Board in exercise of powers conferred on the Board by Sections 63(1) and 63(A) of the Merchant Shipping (Masters and Seamen) Act 1979 and by Section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1985 be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
SHIPPING CASUALTIES (FORMAL INVESTIGATIONS) (APPLICATION) ORDER 1986 — APPROVED
The Governor: Item 38, Merchant Shipping. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Harbour Board.
Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Shipping Casualties (Formal Investigations) (Application) Order 1986, made by the Harbour Board in exercise of the powers conferred on the board by Section 6 of the Shipping Casualties (Inquiries, Investigations and Reports) Act 1979, be and the same is hereby approved.
The Governor: Is that agreed?
It was agreed.
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES — FIFTH INTERIM REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE APPROVED
The Governor: Item 39, Constitutional Issues. I call upon the Chairman of the Select Committee on Constitutional Issues.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:
That the Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Issues be approved.
It is difficult for me to assess the amount of comprehension that is required on this report at this hour of the evening, but it is in my view an important report and certainly one that has clarified many of the misunderstandings that have arisen over the years concerning the current constitutional position, and so I hope you will excuse, certainly, a reference to the main points.
Shipping Casualties (Formal Investigations) (Application) Order 1986 — Approved Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2371
First of all, of course, there must be a recognition of the exact nature of the present position. Much misunderstanding over the Island's exact status has arisen due to the confusion between the terms 'colony' and 'dependency'. The Isle of Man is not, and never has been, a colony and I think this is so important to understand and thus Tynwald is not a colonial legislature which derives it power from a grant of competence from the Crown or from the United Kingdom Government. The Island's status as such is recognised by ministers of the United Kingdom Government and that is seen in the recent reply of David Mellor, the Under-Secretary of State in the Home Department, where he re-states the position that the legitimacy and validity of Acts of Tynwald are not based on any grant of competence from the United Kingdom Parliament. Parliament has always recognised their existence and validity and that recognition can be found in the number of our own statutes — that is referring to the statutes of Westminster. So there is the recognition by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament that we do not derive our validity or competence from any Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. By current convention, United Kingdom legislation is not applied to the Island by Order in Council without the consent of the Island, and having established that we are not and never have been within the term 'colony' it is therefore important to see the difference between a colonial legislature and ourselves. Colonial legislatures only have power to legislate in accordance with the enabling Act of Parliament or the Order in Council of the Crown. In the same way, the powers formally exercised by the Parliament of Northern Ireland depended entirely on powers granted to that Parliament by Act of Parliament. These powers were, as has been seen, as easily taken away as granted. By contrast, the legislative authority of Tynwald, which comprises for legislative purposes the Queen, the Governor, the Council and the Keys, is actually unlimited. It can make laws on any subject for the Isle of Man and, as has been stated on numerous occasions, Tynwald legislates as a parliament of an ancient kingdom which pre-dates the association of the Island with England and subsequently the United Kingdom. As the years have gone by of course, the assumption of increased responsibilities has considered steadily. Tynwald now passes laws dealing with many subjects which, in the past, were the subject of Acts of Parliament. The matters which are still dealt with by Acts of Parliament in 1981 were referred to in the Second Interim Report of the committee and there have already been several significant changes since that report was made to Tynwald, particularly with regard for merchant shipping and telecommunications. One could go into this aspect of our present position in even greater detail, but if we can come, I think, to one of the areas of greatest confusion dealing with self- determination, I think we look back to evidence given to Tynwald in 1970 that Tynwald desires to see established indisputably for the Manx people the right and the principle of self-determination. But then we look at the United Nations' charters that have been referred to in many comments here in this Court and Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations has frequently been mentioned in this Court but, of course, it applies to colonial territories and therefore neither the Isle of Man nor Jersey nor Guernsey has been treated by the United Kingdom or, indeed, by the United Nations as a territory to which Article 73 has application as these islands are not colonial or non-self-governing territories. On the contrary, the United Kingdom regards the three islands as self-governing territories, albeit as dependencies
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2372 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 of the Crown. However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1966 has, since 1976, applied to the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. So we must look in great detail on this particular issue. Article 1 of the covenant states: 'All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.' Now if one just stops and thinks very deeply about that first part of Article 1, 'all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status. All peoples may for their own ends freely dispose of their national wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligation arising out of international co-operation based upon the principle of mutual benefit and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. The states parties to the present convention, including those having responsibility for the administration of non-self-governing and trust territories shall promote the realisation of the right of self-determination and shall respect that right in conformity with the provisions of the charter of the United Nations.' Now the United Kingdom had to give a report to the United Nations Committee as it did for the Channel Isles as well: 'The islands have always enjoyed a considerable degree of independence but the United Kingdom Government was not opposed in principle to a movement towards greater autonomy provided it own responsibilities were not put at risk. Those responsibilities, of course, extend to international relations. There was no request from the inhabitants of the islands for complete independence and if there were great political movement for independence, the United Kingdom Government would consider it seriously'. This answer leaves us in no doubt that the Manx people's right to self-determination is undisputed — that is to say that if there should be a clear and unequivical decision that the Isle of Man should cease to be a Crown dependency and become a fully self- governing state the United Kingdom would accede. Indeed, this was confirmed by letter dated 13th May 1986: 'I am to say that the position of Her Majesty's Government remains the same as indicated by the previous Home Secretary during his visit to the Island in 1983, namely that if there is a general support in the Isle of Man for further constitutional change, Her Majesty's Government will be pleased to consider any specific proposals put forward by the people of the Isle of Man.' I think we now have to look at what is meant by 'self-determination' and what is meant by 'self-government', because here we have areas of confusion. A non- self-governing territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by three means: either as the emergence as a sovereign independent state; secondly, in free association with an independent state or, thirdly, complete integration with an independent state. Although one could go on elaborating on these three aspects, if you look at our current position and if you look at our ability to move from our present position, I think it can be said that the Isle of Man has effectively achieved a status equivalent to free association, and assuming that this form of constitutional status continues to be perceived as the aspiration of the Manx people, the question arises what adjustments can be made in the present constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom which might give the Island a greater degree of self-government. Greater self-government for the Isle of Man cannot mean any change in the status
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2373 of Tynwald as a legislature. That is absolutely central to our position. It can only mean the Isle of Man Government taking on additional responsibilities which are now exercised on the Island's behalf by the United Kingdom Government. This means identifying specific governmental functions for which authority might be transferred. Now of course we have already referred to two items — that is, telecommunications and merchant shipping — which have been assumed by this Government in the last few years and also of course the local Royal Assent, which is a further step forward. One then may look at the other items mentioned in previous reports, some of which have been achieved, some of which have not progressed very far and some of which have not progressed at all. We have to accept that one would only negotiate each one and some of those with great difficulty. We then deal with what is perceived by most people, although it is not actually strictly speaking true as a constitutional issue but it is perceived by the vast majority of people and is mentioned in two previous resolutions of this Court — that is, the Customs and Excise Agreement — and the committee are at great pains to point out that there is one major misconception of our position as far as the Customs and Excise Agreement needs to be laid to rest: the Island's relationship with the United Kingdom over Customs and Excise is purely fiscal and not constitutional. The reason is quite simple. It is a voluntary agreement which can be voluntarily ended and it will be voluntarily ended by this Court and this Government when we are in the financial position so to do. That is not an issue of constitutional progress, it is a fact today that whether we have this agreement or not is entirely our own position. Clearly, termination of the agreement would give rise to a need for legislation and raise a number of policy and operational matters, and the Secretary of State has already agreed and would hope that the Isle of Man Government would seek negotiations on this matter in advance of giving the notice of terminating the agreement. As a first step it would seem appropriate for the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man to list the consequential actions that might need to be taken on both sides and to seek expert advice on ways of achieving them before formal negotiations are put in hand. I can personally say that there has never been, in any meeting that I have ever attended in the Home Office, any obstruction at all to us assuming control of our own indirect taxation; it is a matter for us to decide. So, in conclusion, because this report is trying to clear in everybody's mind what the present position is, we have in effect reached a free association with the United Kingdom which currently is a voluntary act. We have the complete ability to change our present position at will. There are many factors that would have to be brought into the equation to see if that change is in the best interests or even desired by the majority of the Manx people. These changes will take place in due course. I do not want to labour this report any further. It cannot of necessity be a recommendation because the recommendations would have to follow each individual concept of assuming greater responsibilities. It does clarify our immediate position and I will not waste any further time until I answer the questions raised by individual members in debate and then, perhaps in rounding up, we can clarify some of the points and some of the necessary factors that would have to be present before each individual step can be achieved. I beg to move that this report is received and adopted and approved by this Court.
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2374 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
The Governor: I look for a seconder.
Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Your Excellency, this Island has a rich heritage of government in excess of a thousand years of continuous government. It also possesses one of the worst records of political emancipation to be found in the Commonwealth to be set alongside that record. This evening we are being asked to address ourselves to a nebulous resolution presented in the most misinformed constitutional address I have ever heard made to this Court. We have been told that it is difficult to comprehend, our constitutional position. I have to ask, why? Anyone who has studied MacDonald, McDermott, Stonham or the Royal Commission would have no doubt whatever as to our constitutional position. Anyone who has looked at the United Nations provisions would have no doubt as to the international obligations of both the sovereign territory and the dependency. Your Excellency, I have listened intently to the presentation of this resolution, hoping that somewhere along the line there would be some indication of what the resolution purports to do other than clear the desk, perhaps, of the appropriate committee and deprive the Island of any constitutional aspirations that they have hitherto enjoyed. Yes, I have listened and I have listened in vain for a ray of comfort in respect of the Island's future. If you look at the report it embodies no resolution, merely conclusions and advice to the House as to what the committee feel, that action on earlier reports to the House should be. Equally interesting is the way — and frankly I regard it as an amateurish presentation — it seeks to portray to Tynwald what its constitutional position is through the medium of a speech made to the Commons by David Mellor in 1983 and then tries to brush off the implications of that speech by saying that current convention will by implication provide a degree of safeguard. But if you look at the end of that particular speech you will note that the essence of a relationship has been and continues to be 'That Tynwald legislate in matters domestic to the Island subject to its statutes receiving Royal Assent, that appropriate United Kingdom legislation may be extended to the Isle of Man by order in Council and in some contexts United Kingdom legislation may apply to the Island directly when it deals with matters for which the United Kingdom is responsible on the Island's behalf' — a clear portrayal of an overlord's responsibility. Your committee — and I am referring to the Constitutional Committee — when presenting its second report portrayed pretty clearly the situation which today's membership appears to want to cloud. They also portrayed specific objectives for the Island — for instance, it is quite clear from the report that a fully self-governing territory having British nationality was an objective, but the present committee say that is not an objective but rather a direction towards more complete self- government. They ignore the Court's unanimous resolution earlier this year, in February, which was an expression of Government policy. Pricir to this debate, realising the apparent inability of Government to realise that the United Kingdom has a responsibility to help us forward constitutionally, I posed questions to Your Excellency so that members would be clear about the relationship and its implications. I also wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations to be sure that there was, as I saw it, a clear obligation on the United Kingdom to help us forward as Your Excellency's spokesman was at that time evading direct answers
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2375 to the question. Now, what is the international requirement, Your Excellency? The United Nations letter spells it out; it is lengthy but this is a debate of real importance to the Isle of Man:
Dear Sir, Reference is made to your letter dated 27th January 1986'. (and this letter is dated 14th April) 'Replies to your questions are set out below in the corresponding order. The Charter of the United Nations makes distinction between two types of dependent territories: non self-governing territories and trust territories. The provisions relating to the former group of territories are set out in chapter 9 and those concerning the latter group are in chapters 12 and 13. In brief, non self-governing territories are those defined as territories whose people have not attained a full measure of self- government according to Article 73. Trust territories are former League of Nations mandates, territories detached from countries defeated in the Second World War and territories voluntarily placed under the trusteeship system by states responsible for administration in Article 77(1). In 1946 the General Assembly in its resolution 66 enumerated 74 territories, a group of territories in which eight administering member states had stated they would transmit information under Article 73(E). In 1963 the special committee on the situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples prepared a preliminary list of territories to which the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, General Assembly Resolution 1514, applied. The list consists of 64 territories or groups of territories coming under the following categories: trust territories; the territory of South-West Africa now known as Namibia; the territories which have been declared by the General Assembly as non self-governing territories within the meaning of chapter 11 of the Charter but on which no information was transmitted under Article 73 by the administering powers concerned; and non self-governing territories on which information was transmitted by the administering powers concerned. This preliminary list was an extra report of the special committee (official records of the General Assembly 18th Session annexes addenda to Agenda item 23) and approved by the General Assembly at its 18th session. The two are enclosed herewith for your ease of reference. On 15th December 1960 the General Assembly in its Resolution 1541 adopted principles which would guide member states in determining whether or not to transmit the information called for under Article 73(E) of the Charter. The General Assembly takes the position that it alone has the competence to decide that a non self-governing territory has attained a full measure of self-government under the terms of chapter 11 of the Charter and holds that, in the absence of such a decision, the administering powers concerned should transmit or continue to transmit information called for under Article 73(E) of the General Assembly resolution of 2nd December 1985. The Secretariat has no record of the Isle of Man ever having been brought to the attention of the United Nations bodies concerned by any member state within the context of Article 73(E) of the Charter or in terms of General Assembly Resolution 1514. The objectives of the Charter and the principles of the Declara -ion on the Granting of Independence to
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2376 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Colonial Countries and Peoples are applicable without distinction to all trust and non self-governing territories. The declaration stipulates that all people have the right to self-determination by virtue of which they have freely determined their political status and freely pursued their economic, social and cultural development. Furthermore, in a number of resolutions relating to specific territories the General Assembly has expressed the view that such factors as territorial size, geographical location, hon. members, 'size of population and limited natural resources should in no way impede the implementation of the Declaration. During its 1985 session the General Assembly has observed the 25th anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and adopted a Resolution 4056 on the occasion without a single dissenting vote. I am enclosing for your information a copy of the resolution together with the provisional verbatim record of a special commemorative meeting held by the General Assembly on that occasion, which in my view unambiguously reflects the commitment of the United Nations policy embodied in the Charter of the United Nations'.
Now, Your Excellency, that makes clear, I think, the responsibility of the United Kingdom towards the Isle of Man. Against that background my question to Your Excellency on the 15th April, which I quote, was, 'What action has Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government taken to implement its obligations in respect of this dependency?' In accordance with Standing Orders you directed it to be answered by the Chairman of Executive Council who said, `The formal answer to this is "none" as the United Kingdom has never looked upon the Isle of Man as a colony'. Now, Your Excellency, it is quite clear the United Nations do not stop at colonies; they come on to the responsibility of sovereign territories for dependencies and the need to bring them on to self-determination. So to that extent that answer was misleading. I also wrote, Your Excellency, or rather, going on from that point, on 21st May I asked how Your Excellency, as the representative of Her Majesty's Government here and responsible to that Government, saw as the answer to two questions. The questions on that date were, 'What is the constitutional status of the Isle of Man and does it fall within any of the categories contained in the Declaration, and does the United Kingdom Government accept the unanimous resolution of the hon. Court as clear and unequivocal evidence of the wishes of the majority of the people of the Island? If not, what would be regarded as qualifying evidence?' The answer, Your Excellency, revealed an unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to accept the normal pattern of governmental representation, but an insistence on a referendum of Manx people was unveiled. Now, hitherto that has never been a pattern sought within the Commonwealth. Governments have been allowed to speak for their people. This Government speaking with a united voice apparently was not enough; it did not amount to anything. Her Majesty's Government were seeking a referendum on the views of the Manx people in respect as to what degree of self- determination they required. I would ask today if the chairman, in presenting his report is, able to give me any indication of any other country that has been asked to produce that pattern of confirmation of the public's need. It is also stated by Your Excellency's spokesman that — and I quote Your Excellency — 'Abrogation is the next major step to independence'. Now you can realise from the speech you have heard this afternoon just how misleading that
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2377 particular quotation was, yet I have to give credit to the committee on getting the fact right and to spell the illusion in this case in paragraph 4.5 of their report in their statement there as to the true position: 'The Island's relationship with the United Kingdom over Customs and Excise is purely fiscal and is not constitutional'. So today, as it is contended that the United Kingdom is open to hear representations from the Island, you know from His Excellency's confirmation that they do know of our aspirations because His Excellency has confirmed to the Court that the political aspirations of this House were conveyed to the Home Office, and the fact remains that they are indulging in masterly inactivity in respect of them, and that has been a pattern that we are quite used to. So the bland assurances given by the committee that the United Kingdom is ready to negotiate on this issue, I think, must be taken as nothing more than bland assurances. I can well recall that when even the suggestion of the commercial deal on abrogation was resented to such a degree by Her Majesty's Government that they resorted to the violent threats of economic Now, Your Excellency, if hon. members look at the conclusions in this report you will see it is important to recognise that constitutional change can only be attained by see it is important to recognise that constitutional change can only be attained by action emanating from the Isle of Man. That may be a statement of fact, but the truth is that under its international obligations Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government should be doing everything possible to bring this Island to a position where it can, frankly, exercise independence. That is the international obligation laid upon that Government, it is the international obligation accepted by it and it is hard to accept as fact this statement in the report, which says in essence that you will never get it until you ask for it. Well, I believe that to be true and I do think that we cannot expect any help at all towards political emancipation here to a greater degree from Her Majesty's Government. The report goes on, 'Indeed it is important that the initiative should remain with the Isle of Man Government'. Now, here I do really pause and pose the question of Governmental initiative. Initiative from the Isle of Man Government? There has not been an ounce of initiative in the , nake-up of this Government since the day it was elected, and I am talking in cons .itutional terms. Prior to this House coming into power you will remember that this Government was intent on ensuring a degree of detachment from the Isle of Man tc ensure its political future, to ensure its on- going ability to retain its nationhood. To do that it hired what was regarded, at least by the Court, as one of the best professional advisers in Britain. Now that adviser, Bathurst, worked with the Isle of Man Government and worked with the Isle of Man Attorneys and produced a framework, Your Excellency, which was the basis of negotiations, and it was through that particular operation that any degree of advance, since the turn of the century really, was achieved, and as for positive response I am delighted there is that degree of optimism. It goes on to say 'Independence or any particular degree of independence can only be sought as a result of a perceived desire for such on the part of the Manx people. It is therefore unreasonable to suggest to the United Kingdom alone is responsible for a lack of progress in constitutional matters'. I would agree there has been no pursuit of the Island's aspirations. You will recall that the Constitutional Committee put forward a resolution; it was accepted as the policy of Tynwald. It was never even submitted to Her Majesty's Government! Can you imagine a situation where a Government of the day — and I am now referring to the beginning of the
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2378 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 life of this House — accepting a resolution which had been passed by an earlier House, did in no way take action to represent it to the sovereign territory but went on until a resolution was put forward in February of this year and then, to put it bluntly, on the demand of Tynwald, it was presented to Her Majesty's Government and Your Excellency acknowledged at that time its presentation to that Government any awareness of that Government of the constitutional aspirations of the Manx people as contained in the Second Interim Report? It has not been pursued because the Government has laid back and said 'We want to get the Island's house in order'. There are some of you here who are young men and you will find, as you sit in this place, that it will take years to advance the Island's constitutional position. You will find that your aspirations, if you have any, will be worn down by the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to your objectives before you ever really achieve them, by all sorts of devices. I can recall one in particular when Stonham was coming along with concrete proposals for the Isle of Man, but you may remember, some of you who are old enough to remember, the fact that there was nationalism in Scotland, nationalism in Wales and Her Majesty's Government adopted that most remarkable device — the appointment of a Royal Commission. The idea of a Royal Commission is always to acknowledge there is a problem and subdue it by the effluxion of time. Now the Isle of Man's interests were submitted to that Royal Commission and that is what happened. We go on: 'Progress to a greater measure of self-government short of sovereign independence will only be achieved by negotiation and must be borne in mind there can be no guarantee that every feature would be as we wish.' Well, that is self- evident, I would have thought, to most members. 'Areas such as nationality and freedom of entry into the United Kingdom, for example, could be affected. In fact, the assumption of responsibility by the Isle of Man Government for foreign affairs and defence would be a last step in becoming a sovereign independent state'. I do not know where that particular line comes from; it is rather like the line which is so often put forward by Your Excellency's spokesman that the Island is seeking complete independence, and that is always put forward as the foible, if you like, to the line that we are seeking a limited degree of advance constitutionally. At no time have we sought the pattern of responsibility for foreign affairs and defence and, when you come to think of it, is there any reason, if this Island were to advance its natural aspirations constitutionally, that we should be treated in a manner more detrimental, perhaps, than that afforded the Irish Republic when it decided to detach itself and become a republic? It was treated with the utmost consideration by Her Majesty's Government and still is, and why should we, because we are small, be treated in any worse manner? I could not understand that happening, even from Her Majesty's Government. Now 'the development of the Isle of Man's own governmental institutions is a vital prerequisite to any further constitutional progress'. Frankly I do not accept that from the committee at all. Tynwald as it was composed, Tynwald as it operated was able to place the aspirations of the Manx people before the United Kingdom Government. It does not have to have a cabinet to advance its constitutional aspirations; it has tried to do it and has succeeded in part over the decades through Tynwald as the Government, so this is not a statement of fact. 'The committee, in conjunction with the Boards' Responsibilities Committee, has been active in examining the present structure of Government and in recommending changes, the
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2379 development of a departmental form of government with a more defined co- ordinating role for Executive Council is vital for further external changes'. Your Excellency, again I cannot accept that particular contention. I have always accepted the fact that you will get a more recognised pattern of negotiation if you are negotiating with ministers as opposed to chairmen of boards because, whether you like it or not, hon. members, the constitution of the Home Office is such that in the lower echelons, where we normally deal and negotiate, there is quite a failure to understand the Island's constitutional position and more often than not you will find that the Isle of Man is treated as a county rather than a dependent territory, and it takes a little while to break through that particular barrier. In fact, in perhaps an experience lasting something like 40 years I have only found one civil servant, one under-secretary, with a real understanding of the Island's position, and that was Sir Austin Strutt, the only man who ever had a real grasp as to what the Island's true position was in that office. Now, what I have recited to you is the conclusions. You see they are so pale, so insipid that they are meaningless against the background of constitutional advance. We go on, Your Excellency, to a pattern where we talk of the bowstring, as recommended in the other report, of our external relationships and, frankly, I welcome that; I welcome it as part of the policy that was defined by this Government, and until we do establish stronger external relations we are going to have little chance of having an evolving constitution. The final bit is: 'Finally we must emphasise that any further progress towards a greater measure of independence should only be sought when it is clearly to be seen in the Island's best interests and, further, is supported by the majority of the Manx people'. Right, there is an election coming — take it to the hustings, make it an election issue, find out whether the Manx people want to have the controlling hand of Her Majesty's Government, find out whether the Manx people want a greater degree of internal autonomy. I challenge hon. members to do that and to place the position truly before them, and I feel that to suggest today that progress towards a greater measure of independence should be sought when it is clearly to be seen in the Island's best interests shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the Island's position and a lack of appreciation of the fact that it is in the Island's best possible interest to achieve a greater degree of independence which will give it a better status; with the banking and finance interests that are bolstering our economy at the present time, it will give us a better stance with outside territories and even with the United Kingdom, who are treating us as foreign in so many ways at the present time. We will be clarifying a position which at the moment is quite cloudy.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand whether or not this particular resolution is supposed to override the earlier reports. I can only think that it is only by implication that it does so but, I fear, sir, that today we are portraying to the Manx people a sense of weakness, a sense of despair and an illusion of sovereignty which they do not possess and I feel that until this is changed they can have very little to look forward to in relation to their future unless this Government girds its loins and tackles the problem of constitutional aspiration at a very early date in the life of the new House.
Mr. Delaney: If it was allowed under Standing Orders, Your Excellency, I would
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2380 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 stand up and applaud, not because the Speaker in any way has brought anything new to light but he puts across, I believe, the views and the aspirations of a lot of ordinary people who have not got the privilege to stand up and say in the place he has and to say it. To actually accept what is implied by this thesis of what makes up a colony and a dependency — because that is what it is — is an insult to the intelligence of even lay people like myself, because they have done a little bit of homework and to have spent ten years in this hon. Court has taught me one thing: the fact that I stand up and call you 'Your Excellency' does me personally no self- good. It certainly does nothing for the people I represent because you are Her Majesty's representative, overseer of the debates that I take part in on the behest of the people I represent and all other members of the House of Keys and, I would say, the upper House represent. If you look at the dictionary you find exactly what a Governor is: 'Of a colony or a dependency'. We have had it told to us by the opening remarks that we are not a colony. Well, I certainly do not feel like a dependency because, if you look at the same dictionary, you will find out what that is. I believe that there is more to the Isle of Man and the people of the Isle of Man, the 65,000 souls who live here that have managed to survive certainly since the Revestment, since this was sold as a chattel to the Crown. It has got more to offer than that, Your Excellency, and I believe to put a report like this . . . and I do not want answers to these questions because I never would expect them to be answered; I would never expect them for 10 years to be answered. It is not until the Members of the House of Keys at some time in the future come back with the mandate that the Speaker has talked about from the people to say to get us out of this mess we are in — and the mess is a political mess because the Government of the United Kingdom who Your Excellency represents — because that is who you do represent — is put there on political will and although certain groups of people, the two isolated bodies, the Labour• Party and the Conservative Party — and we have that dog-in-a-manger that is coming through at the moment, the Lib-Lab pact, and all the rest of the groups that make up that middle ground, should we ever get to a situation at Westminster, and we have nearly got to it sometimes, where we have the extreme Right or the extreme Left, I do not believe the members of the House of Keys, Your Excellency, will accept that as being the dogma by which they want to live and by which they are governed from an outside body, and that is exactly what we are: we are being governed by an outside body, the political will of an outside body. As I said, I do not wish these questions to be answered. It is how I feel and it is how a lot of members and a lot of ordinary people should feel. We do not ask for overnight change. They never have asked, the Manx people; they are not that way out. They do not want immediate change, but they expect a better report than this of where we are going. We certainly need to know in the next 10 or 15 years, if the situation in Britain should change to an extreme polarised position, where this Isle of Man will be, and it gives me no joy or comfort to read this; it says nothing. I believe there is a need to ask the Manx people. If the general election is a time to ask individually all the candidates — because we only speak on behalf of ourselves — what the other candidates in these elections, half of whom will fill these seats probably, are going to ask, that is up to them. But the Speaker says, well, I ask, I certainly will do and I always have done — what we feel out our relationship with the mother of parliaments. As far as I am concerned they are not happy with it.
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved
TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2381
If you honestly believe they are happy with it, I think you have not been listening to the right people. We have to have some change. We have to have a stronger constitution. We have to have more self-determination. We certainly have to have the right to say to the Manx people, 'If this is your wish and you put us in the position to carry out your wishes, we will carry them out'. That does not happen at the moment. They put us here and even the laws we have signed today are subject to somebody else's and they say in theory 'That is not true, it is not spelt out here' because if any law we pass here is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government 4 it will not be agreed upon. That is a fact that is not spelt out here. If we wish to do something as a Government and it is not acceptable to another Government it is thrown out. It might create a constitutional crisis but it will be thrown out, so have no illusions of exactly what we are. Mr. Speaker referred to us being thought about as being a county council. That is not only his opinion, that is the opinion of other strangers, other countries that look at us. They see us exactly as that and they have a right to see us as that, because that is how we act under the constitution that we have. We might have fiscal and constitutional strength but we certainly have not got that determination that every small requires — every large community, if it comes to that. Your Excellency, the report I will vote against, not because it contains anything I dislike, it is because it contains nothing that I do like and that is taking us anywhere. I think that members today, whatever they say about it — try to defend it or anything else — must at least do what the Speaker asks and go back to their constituencies, and those that do return come back with a clear mandate whether they want a change for better than what we have. I believe that people want that, I believe there is a necessity without that major step of breaking away altogether, but the time might come, Your Excellency, when that step will be taken and I dread to see that. I would rather take a small step at a time, and what this report does not do is point out that other step, because, as the mover has said, the Common Purse is not the constitutional position, it is a fiscal position, it is a gentleman's agreement, virtually, to share the money. What we need is an agreement with a gentleman to say that we can control where we are going to sleep tonight and when we are going to get up in the morning and I believe, Your Excellency, that is what we have not got.
Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I agree with much of what the two previous speakers have said and I regret to say that I do find this report rather disappointing in a number of respects. Firstly, the resolution on 26th February this year referred to the whole of that on 14th July 1981 and the latter contained a section headed `Financial', under which it was made clear that consideration should be given to an alternative insofar as exchange control legislation brought in might affect this Island. Now I regard it as extraordinarily unfortunate that nowhere does the committee even touch on this matter. There are very many people in the financial sector who regard it as of the utmost importance that this Government should state quite clearly how they would deal with a situation which could arise if the United Kingdom try to include the Island in the future in old-fashioned•type exchange control regulations such as those we have known up until the late '70s and I cannot over-estimate the damage that could be done to the financial sector of this Island if this Island was again covered by exchange control regulations of the type previously brought in. I therefore very much hope that either the Chairman of the Treasury
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2382 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 or the chairman of this committee will comment on this matter in some detail, because it is certainly within the remit of the resolution passed by this hon. Court. I am also disappointed that the report contains no recommendations at all for reducing the powers of the position of Governor. There is no doubt that the Governor does still have very considerable residual powers. Indeed several members of Government Office spend a great deal of their time dealing with and administering these powers. Furthermore, although I am sure that every member of this Court and the public would agree that no-one could handle this Court better or more efficiently than yourself, Your Excellency, if we turn to the position of future Governors I believe it is wrong that they should be presiding over this hon. Court for the reasons which I have expressed in previous debates and will therefore not reiterate. Furthermore, I am disappointed that there are no recommendations for the Royal Assent to be given by the Governor in all cases instead of just the majority of cases as at the present. However, on reading this report several times, I believe the most serious part is the statement which is reiterated in It, that the United Kingdom Government has the ultimate right to legislate for the Island. Under Section 2.2 Mr. David Mellor is quoted as saying 'The United Kingdom Government are responsible for those matters', that is defence and foreign affairs, 'and the ultimate responsibility for the good government of the Isle of Man that rests on the right of Parliament to legislate for the Island in a last resort.' Under Section 2.4 we are advised, and I quote: 'It has long been acknowledged, of course, that Parliament at Westminster also has the authority to legislate for the Isle of Man. The competance of Parliament to legislate for the Isle of Man was accepted as far back as 1523.' Again, in 4.6 it states: 'However, as long as the Isle of Man is not a sovereign independent state so that the United Kingdom remains responsible for the Island in international law, it is inevitable that Parliament will retain the right to legislate for the Island in a "last resort". Now I am sure that many hon. members will agree that it is quite unacceptable that a Government of any persuasion in the United Kingdom has the right to legislate for the Isle of Man in the last resort. For what is 'the last resort'? Now many people would agree that the last resort would be if law and order completely collapsed here and the police, say, could not control riots or mobs, if the Island became a centre for drug smuggling, if it became a centre for the I.R.A., or if it became the centre for some hostile power. However, in these events, even if the Island was an independent sovereign state, it is likely that in view of its strategic position and importance the United Kingdom would intervene. However, certain political parties in the United Kingdom could regard good government in a completely different light. They could say it was not good government to be without all their unemployment legislation, whatever we may think about it. that it was not good government to be without all their legislation to protect minority groups, even although we may not have those minority groups in this Island; therefore I regard the present situation as unsatisfactory. Now in fairness one could argue that a more certain and clear relationship could have been detrimental in the past and could be again in the future. This is because you could argue that uncertainty enables the Island to do things without consulting the United Kingdom who are uncertain as to the exact legal position. Furthermore, you could argue that a gradualistic approach has paid in the past.
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2383
I am advised that there are only two real practical possibilities: either the Island can stay as it is with the present situation as now existing and as set out in this report, and with the uncertainty as to the situation in which the United Kingdom could legislate in the last resort for us — that is one alternative. The other alternative is that the Island could become a sovereign independent state. But I am certain that in the latter event there could be a treaty by which the United Kingdom would be responsible for our defence and foreign affairs, because I am sure that no-one here wants to go into the foreign affairs business or set up mini-armies or navies.
Mr. Brown: Clifford does! (Laughter)
Mr. Gilbey: Furthermore, the question of dual nationality, I am sure, could be covered as it has been in the case of the Republic of Ireland. It was suggested in various quarters that if we were completely independent, Manx people might not have access to the United Kingdom, but why should they not? There are millions of Republic of Ireland citizens in the United Kingdom at this moment enjoying exactly the same rights as United Kingdom citizens. Furthermore, the Queen could remain and would remain as Lord of Mann. I personally believe that this must be the ultimate course for us to follow. However, I do agree with those who say that before we finally follow this course, we should put our own internal Government into a more efficient basis. Furthermore, I believe that such a step of complete independence to a sovereign state should only be reached after the most detailed consideration by Tynwald after it had been given an assessment of all the facts and all the arguments from all points of view, and therefore I hope that this committee's successors will come forward with such a detailed policy document on this matter during 1987.
Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, it is usually I that tend to get accused of hyperbole and emotion. I regret that we have heard so far three speeches which are full of both aspects of oratory and in none of which neither aspect is appropriate to this situation. We really do need to analyse the constitutional position in a cool and logical manner and I think, actually, that this report has done just that. You know, before we can exercise our mouths it is desirable to engage our brains in gear and that is what this report is intended to do: to point out the realities. Now, what is the reality? The reality is that we, although not being sovereign, have actually more political independence than many countries in the world which are sovereign. Because of the particular sovereign status of Tynwald we actually • have more independence than any other country under the Crown without actually having sovereign independence. There is only one way in which we can be more - politically independent, and that is to be sovereign independent. If we were sovereign • independent, as has been pointed out, then we would take responsibility for the last remaining matters like defence and foreign affairs. It has been suggested that there should be a situation where the United Kingdom has no power whatsoever to intervene in our affairs but yet stop short of sovereignty. That is called 'power without responsibility'; it is the prerogative of the harlot and the United Kingdom Government is never going to agree to that. If they are going to take responsibility, they are going to want to have the power to exercise that responsibility if they have to. If we wish to deny them that power, then they will wish to deny the responsibility.
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2384 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
You cannot have your cake and eat it. We are either on our own or we are not. Now at the moment we are on our own just about as much as it is possible to be without actually taking that last final step. Now it has been suggested, 'Oh, well, why do we not got for sovereignty with a treaty relationship?' I think it is a splendid idea — absolutely delighted; it will not cost us anything. Do you really believe that if we got sovereignty and we went back to the United Kingdom and said 'We would like to sign a treaty with you and we would like you to defend us and give us all our foreign affairs for nothing' — rot!
The Speaker: Yes!
Mr. Cain: The first thing that would happen, Mr. Speaker, is the United Kingdom would say 'If you are going to be sovereign independent and we are going to do your defence for you, you are going to pay per capita the same costs as a citizen of the United Kingdom does, and our tax rate will double overnight.'
The Speaker: What you have forgotten is we do not need that defence.
Mr. Cain: Ah, but that would be the terms of it, sir. If we are not prepared to pay their terms we will have to go somewhere else. The Republic of Ireland? A possibility. But I think that many of our citizens in this Island would like to think about that a little longer. Another thought: if we become sovereign independent, our citizens will cease to be British subjects. Now the hon. member for Glenfaba says 'But the Irish have got it both ways.' I am sorry, he is rather misinformed. Mr. Geldof does not have it both ways. He is Irish; he has no dual nationality. The only Irishmen who have dual nationality are those who were born in Ireland before, it became a republic. Since then there is no dual nationality. An Irishman is not allowed to have another nationality. If somebody of Irish decent . . . if our hon. member for East Douglas were to go and claim his Irish passport —
Mr. Brown: Why does he not?
Mr. Cain: (Laughter) He would be required —
Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, as I have been brought into this debate and you asked for Standing Orders, the fact of it is, the hon. member might not understand it but if he calls round to my house he might get the shock of his life, because he does not know what he is talking about!
Mr. Cain: He would be required to give up his United Kingdom passport. If has not done so he is rather naughty, as I understand it. But dual nationality is not possible unless', for an Irishman, you are of Irish decent but born in a British territory; then it is possible. But I believe myself, frankly, that while emotionally every Manxman wants to be free, I do not believe there is a single Manxman in the world that emotionally likes the thought that the United Kingdom can interfere in his own country's affairs,
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 T2385
but I think the reality, when you actually come down to it, is that we have got an exceedingly good deal going for us at the moment and if we want to go towards sovereignty we need to take very careful stock of the implications that it has for us, very careful indeed and I have grave doubts as to whether, if those implications were explained to a public meeting, you would find a majority of people in this island wanting to go that way. Now I think it is a marvellous idea; let us take it up at the next general election. I think we may be surprised. I think a great many people in this island realise that we have got a pretty good deal going for us at the raw moment and a lot of people would not want that to be robbed. The hon. member for Glenfaba raised a number of other issues — for example, the role of the Governor — but this report was concerned primarily, in fact entirely, with the external relationship and the role of His Excellency in the constitution is largely an internal matter, and that is why those matters were not discussed. Again, exchange control, which is of course a highly sensitive and highly complex matter, is and certainly does have implications of constitutional problems, but I think that what we were concerned in this particular report to concentrate on was to try to get a few facts right as to what the actual relationship was rather than to try to look at all sorts of other aspects, whether they are significant or not, but they are peripheral to the main problem, which was: what is the relationship? What is the status of Tynwald? I believe we have done it and I believe that this report, far from being a weak report, I think is one of those documents that will be referred to for many, many years to come as a definitive statement of the relationship between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom as it is at the moment.
The Governor: I call on the chairman to reply.
Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, this report was an attempt to set out a comprehensive assessment of our present constitutional position. It was carefully researched and advised by the Attorney-General. I have to say, hon. members, that my experience in this Court over the last 10 years has been one of coming to terms with the web of confusion and misrepresentation of many major issues perpetrated in this Court, seemingly for the political ends of individuals. Many of the arguments that have been produced here this evening, including the letter read out by the hon. Mr. Speaker from the United Nations, make no difference at all. This marvellous speech in which we are still weaving this web is a complete sham. What was referred to in that letter is actually in our report almost word for word, because they came from the same source. We are still trying to perpetuate a misrepresentation of the true position. To be sure, we have resolved many of the misrepresentations over • the years by applying common sense and a reasonable intelligence, and one wonders — and I do wonder — if there is another reason for this confusion. If there is another • reason it is all the more worrying for all of us, because that means that the person concerned is actually unable to grasp and understand the problem itself. Time and time again in this Court over the last ten years we have seen ourselves being led by an angry bull rushing at a wall, but we should be cheering ourselves on and fighting the battle. But, hon. members, there is not really a battle because the real reason lies here; it does not lie outside, and to continue to give the impression that we are constantly fighting a battle against some unknown force is absolute nonsense, and I think the sooner we get down to the realisation that the wall is
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2386 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 a figment of the imagination the easier it will be for us and, for that matter, for Mr. Speaker. I have tried in this Court month after month, as he has used the Standing Orders of this Court by asking the same question in different form, to explain the problems he has in understanding the difference between the resolutions of the United Nations. It is all the more a pity because, of course, the hon. Mr. Speaker has been associated with many changes that have taken place in the constitutional relationship in the course of the last 40 years, but I think it is also true to say that most of the internal changes have developed in the last ten years, and this development has occurred in spite of the continuing attack on the development of a meaningful executive government. There is a real danger that we are fighting old battles of years ago instead of assuming the skilled diplomacy of our present situation. It has been referred to by many speakers here this evening, the matter of the development of a new government structure. Some have decried it as unnecessary, others have seen it as an advance. There is no dependent territory in the Commonwealth that I am aware of that has ever assumed its own independence without a cabinet-style government. There is no way that we will progress along the line of increased independence without a coherent structure of government that sets out a policy at the beginning of the session and is responsible for the performance of that policy during the five-year session of the House. Hopefully, for the first time ever next time round, whether I am here or not, I hope that for the first time, we will have a coherent cabinet-style government, not perhaps with the full force of a political structure in other countries but certainly a group that will have to persuade the majority of members of this Court that they are actually pursuing the policy that they will lay down at the beginning. Responsible, strong executive government setting out a policy and pursuing it is the only way in which this Government and this Isle of Man will develop increased responsibility and constitutional change. There are one or two other things that we have not mentioned, nor has any speaker mentioned it as yet, and that is, why are we in this position, described quite rightly by the hon. member for Ramsey as being probably better than almost any other dependency in the world. Of course it is that we have never had to seek financial support from the United Kingdom Government. It is the ability of this Government, and the ability over the years of this Government, to manage its own financial affairs which has allowed it to continue to hold that desirable position, and the greatest danger that we have gone through in the last few years is the danger that we may not have succeeded in maintaining that position. Luckily we have done so and we will certainly not be in any danger in the coming years. There are other factors that have to be brought into the equation. If we take the • next step forward we must have the financial ability and economic strength to ensure that we can provide the expertise and the structure of government necessary to carry out those responsibilities. The history of this Government is littered with responsibilities assumed without the expertise to carry them out or, the financial ability to carry them out. And the next step, as has rightly been said, of fiscal independence — that is, the cancelling or change of the Customs and Excise Agreement — will only occur when this Government has the financial strength to actually cut ourselves free. So one can talk airily, fairily, about greater freedom. Greater freedom in the end has to be earned and has to be paid for. When we have
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986 12387
earned the ability we will do it; there will be no doubt about that. And so we come to the real crunch — do we maintain our present position, which we can at this moment afford, or do we go into a true independence? There really is no half-way mark, and to kid anybody along the line that suddenly the United Kingdom Government is somehow going to wave a wand and suddenly our t,., relationship will alter for the better — our relationship will only alter by our own efforts. My position is quite clear. Eventually one will have to take the step of complete • dependence when and if this Government ever achieves the economic base of strength to enable that to take place. We all know that this Government was offered complete independence in 1971, when Mr. Speaker was a member of the committee who was concerned with that, as was Mr. Irving. That committee did not recommend assuming complete independence, probably for the very sound reasons that they could not afford it. And so we come back to the problem: who is responsible for our failure to move along a road of greater independence? There is only one group of people who are responsible and that is ourselves, and let us not kid anybody else that it is anybody else's fault. The sooner we forget the sham oratory of the cheap politician and present the case straight to the Manx people we will get the answer. I do not mind reading it out to them and I most certainly will and I hope you, sir, will do the same.
The Governor: Hon. members, I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Constitutional Issues at item 39 in the Agenda. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.
A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:
In the Keys —
For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, J.H. Kneale, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Faragher, Brown, May, Duggan, Cretney, Martin, G.V.H. Kneale, Irving, Dr. Moore, Messrs. Cain and Bell — 21
Against: Mr. Delaney and the Speaker — 2
The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, sir, with 21 votes being cast in favour and two votes against. Po. In the Council — 1 For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, Ward, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Radcliffe, Anderson, Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Callin — 8
Against: Nil
The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council eight votes cast in favour, none against; the motion therefore carries.
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved T2388 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 15th JULY, 1986
Hon. members, 1 think we have hit our target with only about a minute-and-a- half to spare. I congratulate the House and the hon. Court on the standard of debate throughout a long hard day and I suggest that we meet again at 10.30 in the morning .
The Court adjourned at 8.59 p.m.
Constitutional Issues — Fifth Interim Report of the Select Committee Approved