That the Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee on the Rating of Domestic Property Be Received and the Following Recommendations Be Adopted —

Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 7, Circular Road, Douglas, Isle of Man.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT

DOUGLAS, Tuesday, 25th October, 1983 at 10.30 a.m.

Present: The Governor (Rear Admiral Sir Nigel Cecil, K.B.E., C.B.). In the Council: The President of the Council (the Hon. J. C. Nivison, C.B.E.), the Attorney-General (Mr. T. W. Cain), Messrs. R. J. G. Anderson, R. E. S. Kerruish, E. G. Lowey, R. MacDonald, W. A. Moore and P. Radcliffe, with Mrs. J. E. M. Brown, Acting Clerk of the Council. In the Keys: The Acting Speaker (Mr. G. V. H. Kneale), Messrs. W. K. Quirk, W. A. Gilbey, J. D. Q. Cannan, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. C. M. Christian, Dr. E. J. Mann, Messrs. A. A. Catlin, D. G. Maddrell, R. A. Payne, N. Q. Cringle, C. H. Faragher, Dr. D. L. Moore, Mr. C. A. Cain, Dr. H. D. Teare, C.V.O., Messrs. G. A. Quinney, M.B.E., B. Gelling, A. C. Duggan, E. M. Ward, B.E.M., D. F. K. Delaney, D. Martin, J. A. Brown, with Mr. T. A. Bawden, Acting Clerk of Tynwald.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

The Governor: Hon. members, we have apologies from the hon. member for Garff, Sir Charles Kerruish, the hon. member for Council, Mrs. Hanson and the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Walker, who are away on Commonwealth Parliamen- tary Association business. We now revert to the Agenda where we left off last week and we come to item 26. My hope is, hon. members, that we can complete the Agenda today.

RATING — FOURTH INTERIM REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE — RESOLUTION DEFEATED

The Governor: I call on the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Kneale.

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, as I have an interest in the item on the Agenda and as I have to move it, I ask that the hon. member for South Douglas, Mr. Ward, take the seat as the Acting-Speaker.

Apologies for Absence Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T212 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed. Mr. Ward took the Speaker's Chair.

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, I beg to move —

That the Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee on the Rating of Domestic Property be received and the following recommendations be adopted —

(a) The abolition of all existing combination authorities.

(b) The establishment of four new combination authorities, constituted as suggested in paragraph IV.5, to execute those major duties of local government for which responsibility has not been assumed by Central Government.

(ii) Michael Village Commissioners and Michael Parish Commissioners be amalgamated,

but otherwise all existing local authorities be retained to function within the framework of the proposed combination authorities.

(d) Subject to further consideration there be no redevolution of powers which have been assumed by Central Government other than the transfer of first stage planning and housing to the new authorities, always subject to the right of the Local Government Board to intervene.

(e) The Local Government Board to consider introducing legislation to provide for local authority elections to be conducted by postal ballot.

In this report the Rating Committee has concentrated on an analysis of the local government structure of the Island. That does not mean that we have lost sight of the main objective which is to bring about the abolition of the domestic rate. It was felt that, as rating is so inexplicably related to the functions of local authorities and as the recession has depleted the money to bring about a quick abolition of the rating system, we should take the opportunity to examine the present system of local government. As you will see from the earlier part of our report, the belief that we have too many rating authorities in this Island has been around for a long time, and several committees have been set up to examine the question during the past 50 years.

In 1933 a committee was set up to consider the desirability of reducing the number of local authorities in the Island by establishing a Board of Commissioners

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T213 for each sheading or larger area to take over the function of the parish commissioners. Every time that suggestion is made there are those who tell us we should stick to the ancient boundaries. It is as well to remind them early on in our deliberations that in the distant past the Island was divided into six sheadings, these being the chief tribal units of the Island, each having its own meeting place similar to a local Tynwald. During the Norse period the areas were better organised and the boundaries were precisely defined, very much as they have persisted to the present day. As can be seen from our report, the 1933 Committee, which was under the chairmanship of Deemster Farrant, reported to Tynwald the recommendations falling well short of their original remit, and their report was simply received.

On 17th May 1945 the Isle of Man Municipal Association unanimously carried the following resolution — "In view of the proposals put forward for the reform of our constitution and of the coming reform in our social security, and our education system, and more especially in view of the proposed schemes of post-war reconstruction and development, it is imperative that our system of local government should be overhauled and made more effective and up to date, so that it might take its proper part in making our Island worthy of the sacrifices made by our people, especially the younger ones in the services and in industry of national importance during the period of the war." This resolution was sent to the Lieutenant-Governor with the suggestion that a commission should be set up to consider the whole question. This request was accepted by Tynwald on 20th March 1947, and on 8th August 1947 a commission of five persons, under the chairmanship of Mr. James Corrin, M.L.C., was appointed with the following terms of reference: To inquire into and make recommendations relative to the best methods to be adopted for securing the most efficient and economic development of the administration of local government districts, having regard to:— (1) the growing importance of the efficient development and administration of the public health services; (2) the preservation of the amenities of the Island; (3) the increased obligations to be borne by local authorities with small rateable values; and (4) the request of the Isle of Man Municipal Association for a rearrangement and reduction in the number of local government districts. After over two years of careful consideration, during which the views of all local authorities and the United Kingdom Ministry of Health were obtained and four public meetings were held, the committee report, dated 27th October 1949, was presented to Tynwald on 16th May 1950. That is over three years after the Municipal Association had moved its resolution. One member of the commission had died and one presented a minority report. This was Mr. R. C. Cannell, who just happened to be a member for Ayre.

The three remaining members of the commission recommended:— (1) boundary extensions for certain town authorities; (2) amalgamation of village and parish authorities into rural district authorities elected by postal ballot and exercising full powers of local government; (3) the institution of parish meetings and parish committees, the committees to be composed of the members of the rural district authorities elected by the parish; (4) the introduction of legislation to give effect to these proposals. Once again the report was received by Tynwald and nothing further was done until 17th January 1961 when Tynwald passed the following resolution - "Whereas the Local Government Districts Administration Commission issued its

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T214 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

report on 27th October 1949, recommending inter alia the reduction of the number of local authorities and the extension of the boundaries of certain of the local authorities in the Isle of Man, and whereas following a debate on 16th May 1950 Tynwald received, but did not adopt, the said report; and whereas there is now a continuing and growing need to effect economy and greater efficiency in local government in view of the ever-rising costs of labour and administration, the capital expenses of modern labour-saving equipment and the greater variety and complexity of public services, Tynwald requests His Excellency the Lieutenant- Governor to appoint a commission of five persons to examine the said report in the light of present-day conditions and future trends, and to take such further evidence as they deem necessary and to report whether the recommendations contained in the said report, with or without modifications, should now be implemented and to make sure further or additional recommendations as are deemed desirable." On 6th March 1961 a commission consisting of five members under the chairmanship of Deemster MacPherson was appointed. They obtained the help of Mr. Richard Marshall, County Treasurer of Gloucestershire, to advise on the financial implications of any recommendations they might make.

After over two years of investigation they prepared two reports, one dated June 1963 and the other November 1963. These reports were not considered by Tynwald until 18th and 19th February 1964, nearly three years after the commission had been appointed, and once again these reports were simply received. All the recommendations contained in the June 1963 report dealt with the maintenance and cleaning of roads, including the abolition of the highway rate, and all of these have been accomplished in the past few years. The recommendations of the November 1963 report were as follows:— (1) the formation of one authority in the extreme south of the Island, composed of Port Erin and Port St. Mary and that detached southern part of Rushen parish cut off by the villages. A look at that report shows that both Port Erin and Port St. Mary Commissioners had appeared before the commission and stated that they were in favour not only of amalgamation of their two villages but also of a wider area. It is worth noting that Malew Parish Commissioners agreed in principle to amalgamation and they themselves suggested a district comprised of their parish with Arbory and Rushen parishes, Port. St. Mary, Port Erin and Castletown, each district to provide two members for the joint authority. That is exactly what we are proposing. The second recommendation was that Michael Village District should be included in the Michael parish, and again this was with the approval of both parish and village commissioners, and this again is exactly what we are proposing. Their third recommendation, that Onchan village district should be included in Douglas, is so obviously right that it needs no comment from me. It is worth remembering that the 1949 commission's report recommended that the whole of south Braddan district should be included in the Douglas area, and again I would not argue too much against that.

In November 1965 a further commission was set up to examine the problems of rating and taxation within the Island and at the same time the Local Government Board was carrying out their own inquiry. In December 1966 the Local Govern- ment Board presented a report to the Lieutenant-Governor on their responsibil-

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T215

ities, functions and duties, and in this report they included certain recommendations regarding reorganisation of local government in the Island. They suggested that the Isle of Man be divided into five administrative areas, and details of their recommendations are referred to in our report. Attached to their report was a minority report by Mr. P. Radcliffe, the member for Ayre. The report was laid before Tynwald in September 1967. It was never debated, despite questions being aksed why in January 1968 by both Mr. MacDonald and Mr. McFee. It had, however, been submitted to the Commission on Rating and Taxation.

In the meantime, a General Election to the Keys had taken place in December 1966, following which a new Local Government Board was appointed of which Mr. Percy Radcliffe was chairman, and they submitted the report on the rating and taxation commission dated 6th February 1967, dissociating themselves from the recommendations of the previous board. They were not in favour of the proposed reduction of the number of local authorities to five, but were of the opinion that the set-up whereby 26 local authorities existed in the Island could not be considered effective and that the centralising of administration is the ideal to be aimed at — take note of this when you are reading the minority report attached to the report before you today.

In March 1967 the report of the commission on rating and taxation was published. They recommended the creation of a new single local authority for the whole Island, consisting of 50 members, roughly based on one member for every 1,000 persons. This was to replace all existing local authorities, but to keep close and continuous contact between the authority and the inhabitants of the various districts they recommended that the new authority should appoint five district committees, each consisting of the elected representatives for their respective area. That was going much further than we are suggesting today. Again there was a minority report attached to that report, and strangely enough it was by a member for Ayre, Mr. R. E. S. Kerruish. That report was not considered by Tynwald until October 1967 and no decision was taken on these recommendations.

That is giving you a brief precis of the efforts made in the past to solve the problem of local government in the Island. From 1933 onwards several I commissions and committees have examined the problem and have come up with similar ideas to ours, but Tynwald has done very little other than receive their reports. In recent years, however, a desire of certain local authorities to work closer together for specific purposes has manifest itself and there are at present eight combination authorities in existence, dealing with refuse collection, swimming pool administration and elderly persons sheltered housing. The local authorities in the north of the Island have combined for all three, and those in the south have combined successfully for two. Besides this, in parts of the Island some of the smaller local authorities have the same clerk, for example, Ballaugh, Jurby, Andreas and the northern parishes refuse collection have the same person. Michael village and parish have the same person, and so too do GPrman and Patrick.

We as a committee have taken careful note of all the evidence given to the various commissions over the past 50 years and also their recommendations. We

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T216 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

have taken note of the way the combination authorities have worked. We appreciate that the present system of local government in the Island does encourage parochial interest, but we also appreciate that over the years there has been a tremendous change in the relationship between the country and town dwellers. The first official census was taken in the Island in 1821, but before that a census had been taken by the clergy, and records of this are available from 1727 onwards, In 1727 the population of the Island was approximately 14,000 of which only 2,530, or about 18 per cent., lived in the four towns. Douglas was the largest with a population of 810. Today 71 per cent. of the population live in the urban areas of the Island, and many of those who live in the rural areas are town people. Most country dwellers today are indistinguishable in their way of life from the town dwellers.

In view of these facts, hon. members will be surprised at the very modest extent of our recommendations. Similar recommendations to all ours have been made in the past by previous commissions or committees. We recommend the amalgamation of Michael village and Michael parish. You will notice from the background information at the beginning of our report that Michael was one unit until July 1905, when the village district was created on the petition of Michael Parish Com- missioners because an outbreak of enteric fever had occurred in the village area due to the drinking of contaminated water. In 1963 both the parish and village commissioners were in favour of an amalgamation taking place, because I am sure that they realise better than anyone the ridiculous situation which exists where they have a built-up part of the parish district completely surrounded by the village on three sides and the sea on the other. I have a copy of a large map showing the situation. If you can see it you will appreciate what I am talking about. The part coloured yellow is the village and that white area is the parish and you will see that the yellow area completely surrounds a part of the white area. The properties in Cannan Avenue have their front part in the village and their rear part in the parish. The same applies in Station Road. At the last census there were 532 persons living in the village and 445 in the parish, a total of 977 in two mixed-up local authorities. There is every justification for the village claiming the detached part of the parish, but it is much more sensible if they simply go back to where they were prior to 1905, and that is what we are recommending. After all, they share the same clerk now and could cut down on administrative charges straight away, as their nett expenditure is made up of administration and refuse collection. Admin- istration alone account for 24 per cent. in the parish and 34 per cent. in the village.

An amalgamation of Onchan village and parish is also an obvious thing to happen. In 1931 the population of Onchan village was 1,715 and of Onchan parish district 847. In 1981 the population of the village was 7,478 and the parish only 401. In 50 years the parish district's share of the population has gone down from 33 per cent. to five per cent. Some 30 years ago they had to give away part of the parish district which had been developed because they could not afford to provide the services for the developed area. The notional product of their rate is £2,640. They have ceased to be a viable entity, and Onchan parish has not had a contested election since 1895.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T217

We considered the amalgamation of other local authorities such as Port St. Mary and Port Erin who have indicated their desire to amalgamate in 1963, and of Patrick and German who at present are indivisible, parts of St. Johns being in each parish. They share the same clerk and their rates are nearly the same and are very low, but then we turned our thoughts to the local authorities who have combined for the carrying out of certain functions, and considered whether an extension of that system would be worthwhile. We came to the conclusion that it would. It must be obvious to everyone, even though some try to close their eyes to the fact, that the larger authorities provide facilities from which the Island as a whole benefits.

We are recommending the abolition of all existing combination authorities and the establishment of four combination authorities to execute those major duties of local government for which responsibility has not been assumed by Central Government, and these are listed in Appendices 2, 3 and 4 of this report. We do not support the devolution of powers which have been assumed by Central Government other than the transfer of first-stage planning and housing for the new authorities, and even then we believe that the Local Government Board should have a final say if necessary. In deciding on the make-up of the four combination authorities we have felt it more important to balance urban and rural interests than we have representation on a strictly numerical basis, and our proposals are shown in paragraph 5 of Part IV of the report — an error has occurred in the printing of the "Northern and Western District" in that the top line in each case should be moved to the right so that "Ramsey" is over "Ballaugh" and the figure "6" is in line with the other figures in the end column; likewise "Peel" and the figure "3" should move over. We have put Santon in the Eastern district to link with Braddan because that is where they are at present, but we really believe that Santon belongs to the Southern District and could be linked with Malew. However, as the total population of Santon is so small, it will have no significant effect wherever it is.

Another recommendation which might be considered controversial is that we have a postal ballot for all local authority elections. This was recommended by the 1949 commission and also by Peel and Braddan Commissioners in 1963. The turnout for many of their elections is notoriously low — below 25 per cent. in several cases, and as low as 10 per cent. in Lonan in June 1982. Some candidates only put their names forward in the hope that they get in unopposed and then withdraw at the last moment when they see they have opposition, thus denying the electorate the chance to exercise their democratic right to vote for the persons to represent them, and this has happened in four constituencies recently. A postal ballot may encourage more people to vote and more candidates to stand when they know they have not got the trouble of getting people to the polling booths.

We have asked for the resolution to be put on the Agenda in the way that it is so that hon. members can vote on each recommendation separately, and I would request Your Excellency to put each on separately. I move that the Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee on Rating be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.

Mr. Cringle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T218 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, this morning we have had a history lesson going back into the past, but times change. We are in modern days. I do think that 1984 is coming through the door. Someone has forgotten years ago in a history lesson something about the Magna Carta. Local authorities are closer to the people than some of the hon. members of this Court seem to understand. Excluding Douglas the remainder have unanimously and with much feeling opposed the recommendations of the Select Committee, and they have come out entirely on the side of the minority report. One wonders then how some hon. members, with the same electors, can be so at variance with the local authority opposition. I know the smaller local authorities are called parochial. Is not this Government parochial in its national and international dealings? You know what is best for the Island against the larger people you deal with, and is it not the same with the villages and the parishes? They know what is best for them, and properly they stand up for that. They have much pride in their civic duties and they perform them very well.

May I ask the hon. members where the inefficiency in local authority is? Who has reported it, and if ever? An authority failing to do its duty or failing to fulfil its responsibilities? Under the control of the Local Government Board as they are I would request the chairman, or in his absence today maybe the vice-chairman of that board, to say if they have ever had grievances laid before them against local authorities, and I would exclude planning in that. The pressure to break up the smaller organisation centres on two things as I see it: hon. members who want an overall control of power and the editorial columns of the local Press.

To deal with the recommendations of the report in more detail — and which, I say here, I oppose — I will be supporting the minority report, and I have some small reservations about that. The summary of recommendations are — and I will take (a) and (b) as one — to form four new combination authorities. "Large is beautiful", and it has received its biggest rebuff everywhere in the United Kingdom, where Mrs. Thatcher is dismantling the great combinations like Greater London. Greater Manchester and Merseyside which were proposed ten years ago, and she is dismantling them because they are excessive in expenditure, excessive in power which they wield against the Government itself, and there is a complete and utter lack of communication with the people at the paying end. It is someone who is sitting behind a desk in an office many miles away from where it is all happening and it is completely out of touch with the basic ground feeling. Please do not reply to me that the Isle of Man is small. It is not small in any situation when some person in the north of the Island is trying to get into an elderly person's home. No-one in Douglas knows them but someone in the north, in one of the small parishes does, and they can talk to them. Someone doing a good civic duty is being routed out and put to the wall. Those who support large combinations must remember: if you later on have ministers you will have bigger opposition to control than you will with the compliant small local authorities now, which are prepared to work with Government.

Dealing with (c) of the report, two pairs to be grouped together, Michael parish and Michael village, Onchan village and Onchan parish. Were they ever invited,

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T219 may I ask, to discuss this with this committee? Please be so good as to reply to that. And if not, why not?

Dealing with (d), planning, I think Government now has the Development Plan and has exceptions to the Development Plan. It is working well; it is in its infancy, I will agree. Please hon. members, do not weaken that control which uniformly covers the whole of the Isle of Man; it treats everyone the same. To insert a new system into the existing system would be ludicrous and it would also need, may I add, a new appeals system. Housing — as it stands it works at the moment. I am sure that Douglas' waiting list would be very concerned if it is joined to Lonan and Santon and suddenly found people in that area were appearing on the regional list for housing in Douglas where they have a problem. The system works, I repeat; leave it well alone.

Dealing with (e), postal votes: are you not aware that we are in a democracy? The committee do not think so. They envisage many things, but on this they recommend the Local Government Board to introduce a postal ballot. In a democracy a voter can vote for whoever he or she chooses; that he or she need not vote at all if they do not wish to do so is allowed. It is still democratic and not unknown elsewhere in the world, I may add. The committee are on a large purge and "we know better than they" is their attitude, so we will order and we will dictate to them how it will be done, and we will ask and order a postal vote. Please do not reply that the voter has opted out of his responsibility or that the postal vote will not be compul- sory. That, I am sure, will be the next thing that is going to happen. All I can see is more legislation needing more enforcement and finally more civil servants to check who failed to vote and to know who should be prosecuted. Do not start on that slippery slope, please.

Some briefs on the report. The larger authorities, and in particular Douglas, will find little comfort at the debating table if combination authorities are formed. They will find that the local authorities sitting round that table can stick up for their own ends and they will not have it all their own way. Do not think they are going in there to dominate. Small authorities have to be ultra-careful with their budgets. Already Mr. Kneale, the hon. member for West Douglas, has quoted that one budget is only a few hundred pounds. My word, you have to spend that carefully to get value for money! They have managed very skilfully to manage their books for the future, taking nothing for granted but being as thrifty as possible.

Many hon. members here were apprenticed in the local authorities. Personally, I am proud to have been a member of a local authority. I know what they do and I have a loyalty to defend them too. I fail to understand members here present who are working to destroy small local authorities, especially those who used to belong to them. I trust their names will be highlighted in the divide today. It is publicity, I hope, they will receive and they will rue. Small local authorities cover two thirds of the population of the Isle of Man, quite a large proportion. I think I would like to stand up and say to the small local authorities: I am glad that you have reacted in this way because it proves you are there. People know you are there and they are listening to you. You are alert and you are not prepared to be buried all that easily.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T220 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

I am becoming seriously alarmed, hon. members, at the number of Select Committee reports in the hands of the same persons, who press for their main objects in devious ways, and I think that this report is possibly a devious way to get other things. I am concerned at the way we are being moved, and not always successfully, by the same people. If it will save a lot of money, if it can be productive, then it is all the better for the Island and I will support it. I am not interested in people seeking power by pathetic recommendations like the one we have in front of us today.

Why was the Report of the Commission on Rating and Taxation of 1967, which was a major commission, and an extensive report taken with evidence, unlike this committee not referred to in the report? I think this committee chose to ignore it completely. In the original it was intended to push this through in the July Tynwald — that is the Fourth Interim Report. But (1) The local authorities had to hear it over Manx Radio on 27th June; (2) no copies were issued on the far-reaching implications which affected them; (3) the Local Government Board had not even been consulted, and they are the guardian angels of the local authorities representing this Government; (4) the local authorities were not invited to give evidence. We are now in the October Tynwald because it was withdrawn. Two things have changed. The local authorities now know the proposals and the Local Government Board has heard evidence, but in that four months has this committee had the backbone to go out to the small local authorities and explain what they were going to do? Either they were afraid of the minority reporter, or they considered themselves arrogant and important and prepared to ignore us. The 1949 report said it did not wish to sweep away parochial interests centred in the villages and hamlets of the Island. The committee remarked "most country dwellers are today indistinguishable from the town dwellers; mobility has swept that away". Did you ever see such a naive reply? The difference is, why do some of the hon. members get upset at the words, as you hear them in here, "sheep premiums" or "fatstock guarantees?" Can you tell me there is not a difference? There is. It stands out. You have simply become entrenched in a place of complete opposition. Paragraph 3.6 of the report is so important it was put into the report, hoping the the reply would hide its true meaning. I think the local Press would do well to print that paragraph in their pages. That would give fair reporting and an unbiased attitude. I say here on this debating floor that I do not want to knock on the door of any paper for them to do that, but I would beg that they do it, please.

Combination decisions — after the combination meeting why should the three members of Onchan village report back to the Onchan Village Commissioners? The decisions are going to be made and only three elected representatives of the people of Onchan will then have the power. The other six members elected by the voters do not honourably represent them any more. The three who went forward are not then democratic; they are simply a committee or representatives with no autonomy whatsoever to vote for Onchan village. The committee will say they will create this animal. Again you are creating legislation, you are providing civil servants, and it will cost more. In no way can I see Douglas Corporation transfer- ring its authority to a combination and becoming a listening post with delegates. I am surprised at the committee reading reports from nearly 20 years ago and now

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T221

arrogantly trying to force them upon us without any consultation whatsoever. I am pleased, though, that the writer of the minority report who dealt with history has changed his mind of latter years; at least he has a sensible approach. Your Excellency, I oppose completely the Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Rating of Domestic Property.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, on a point of order, the hon. member in reading his speech — which I am surprised about — actually impugned the committee that put forward the report; he used the word — and I am sure the hon. member would not deny it — "devious". I believe that is actually impugning under Standing Orders, the principle that we are supposed to be sitting here debating freely in the democracy he so talks about. I quote under Standing Orders, Your Excellency, "No p member shall impugn another member's motives ..."

The Governor: Do you wish to clarify any comment you made?

Mr. Delaney: "No member shall impugn another member's motives."

Mr. Maddrell: I did use the word, Your Excellency. I do not know how I stand; I used it because I felt that way. I will just have to stand by your ruling, sir.

The Governor: Well, we take it then in the spirit in which it is delivered. If you were suggesting impropriety, then I would suggest it might help if you withdraw it if that was the intention.

Mr. Maddrell: I can do that, sir, yes, on your ruling and I apologise if the word is offensive; it was not meant in that sense, it was meant to convey my feelings, sir.

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, firstly I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I think he has summed up the case against this report as well as anybody could do. The Third Interim Report of the Select Committee on Domestic Rating sought and succeeeded in extending its terms of reference to include an analysis of the local government structure of the Island. The majority of the Fourth Interim Report was a very interesting account of the history of local government in the Isle of Man. In reply to some of the fears expressed by one of lithe members of the committee, the hon. member for Garff, Dr. Mann, said — and I Erf quote — "The object of the exercise is to see how much further down the line we can go in implementing the Tynwald resolution without either taking away the independence of local authorities or the way in which they function at the moment" and, as the hon. member for Ramsey has already said, "It does not imply any course of action; it implies investigating possible courses of action and taking into account the views of local authorities in that process. In fact it would be a two- way process, and I am sure the chairman of the committee will, when he replies, underline that no progress is possible by the committee without taking local authorities concerned into their confidence and consulting them before making any proposals." I am sorry, Your Excellency, but I have to ask, did the committee take the local authorities concerned into their confidence? Did they take into account the views of local authorities? Was it in fact a two-way process? Or has the

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T222 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. committee made proposals without consultation? It seems to me, Your Excellency, that those who have proposed this report are not sure what the next step will be, and fear that after the four regional authorities have been established the Fifth or Sixth Interim Report will state that, due to the high cost of running the regional authorities and the duplication of work by the local authorities, the committee recommend the abolition of all local authorities. I am pleased to see that the committee acknowledged that the local authorities cost little and are efficient centres of discussion of local affairs.

Your Excellency, Tynwald may be of the opinion that domestic rates should be abolished, but can we afford it now? I think we all know the answer to that question. We have gone far enough. I listened yesterday to the Mannin Line programme on Manx Radio, and it became obvious to me that the number of Douglas ratepayers think Central Government is not helping the Douglas Corporation at all. I am going to read out the amounts of rate support Douglas Corporation is receiving this year. I want to make it quite clear I am not criticising the payment of this money, merely bringing it to the attention of those who are not aware. The Local Government Board paid in housing £154,420 in the estimates; sewerage, £59,980; contribution to Summerland, £77,840; contribution to Derby Castle, £99,450; the 'bus and air terminal, £22,270; T.T. Grandstand area, £8,000; through the Passenger Transport Board to the 'bus and air terminal, £10,980; through the Tourist Board for the Tourist Trophy Grandstand area, £78,700; the Villa Marina, £16,000; roads £498,450. This is equivalent to a 67 pence rate in Douglas. Most of the members will agree with the principle of Central Government paying for some of the services provided by major local authorities which are not provided by smaller authorities. This is in my view as far as we should go. I agree with most of the views expressed in the minority report of the hon. member for Council, Mr. P. Radcliffe. Needless to say I will be voting against this report.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat did underline, I think, the fear and the awareness that is in the minds of all the local authorities that it will be said in the very near future that this is ridiculous, that the four combination authorities can now handle it and that will become the next step forward. It is step by step, the hon. member said who was accused of impugning ...

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, on a point of clarification, any member of this Court has the right to quote Standing Orders and ask for a point of order. The hon. member has been here for many years and he does not understand that? Amazing!

The Governor: If I may assist you on this one. You are referring to Standing Order 100, I think it is, where members should not use offensive words. This was the complaint and it has been withdrawn, and I would remind members about the Standing Order: that offensive words should not be used in this Court.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I think that one should not be inhibited against stating what the case is, and I do not think it is offensive to say that the hon.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T223 member who is chairman of this committee is a very persistent politician; I do not think that is offensive in any way. He sets a goal and he works and works to achieve that goal, and it is not offensive to say that. I believe that, as in many other cases, he is moving a step at a time along this road, and if he is chairman of a future committee I can envisage a position arising — and it is no detriment to the hon. member if he believes that that is his point of view — that he will say that this is the next and obvious progressive step to make, to go and say that we have now achieved this, they are working ,well and the parish authorities et cetera can disappear. There is no detriment at all to the gentleman as far as that is concerned, Your Excellency, it is politics, it is the way in which he works and I would say has worked in many areas very successfully. As I happen to disagree with him I am on the other side of the fence, because I believe that, although they are small, they are in many ways very effective and I believe the dedication of some of the parish authorities and the members of those authorities is as great, if not greater, than they are in the Douglas Corporation, for example. They do the job within the limits that are set for them with great enthusiasm, and not only as far as the work as commissioners is concerned but in many cases in a voluntary way, combining the work of the commissioners with voluntary effort as Your Excellency witnessed at Foxdale with the opening of the youth club there. Now if this becomes a big authority, that is going, in my view, to completely disappear. In my own area again, which I was proud to represent for 15 years, in Marown, we had the effort of the bowling green, partly funded by rates and partly funded by the effort of the local people putting in and doing work themselves. Where can you instance that sort of thing happening in the bigger authority? It is not done, I have seen local people down there with wagons, their coats off, materials, laying out that bowling green and working there. Now this sort of thing will disappear in my view.

The cost of running those local authorities — it has been mentioned they duplicate as far as clerks are concerned for covering various parishes and there is nothing detrimental at all about that. They are aware of their position in those parish authorities and they can deal with them as they see how. I believe that it was correct and, as Chairman of the Local Government Board at that time, we moved along a road to remove some of the anomalies that existed in the Douglas area. That has been achieved, I fought for it and as far as the roads and the sewers were concerned, because they were a problem that was very difficult for those areas to deal with. I believe the hon. member for Middle said we had moved far enough along that way.

I believe there are one or two areas left where Douglas does need assistance as far as the number of their projects are concerned which are of benefit to the whole Island in the tourist context and with that I would not argue, but I do not believe that this Island will be a better run place from an economic point of view as a result of what is suggested. In the planning context I can envisage that first-stage planning goes to second or third stage, so therefore those authorities, if they are going to do that job and do it with any confidence whatever, are going to have advisory staff, they are going to have inspectors, they are going to have a duplication of bureaucracy and I believe that, instead of having economic savings as far as these areas are concerned, the total bill for people of the Isle of Man will

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T224 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. be a great deal more and the end product will be no better at all. I think that probably it is unique, and I have been on some of the combination authorities which worked very well, and I believe that is the way forward through the combination authorities; working as Peel Western District housing or collection of refuse in those areas, they have worked well. Leave them to work as they are working; do not interefere with them. I am not aware of one of them that is not functioning very well at this moment.

I was responsible for travelling round the north of the Island to get together the authority which runs the swimming pool in the north of the Island and it had been closed for two years, nothing was being done about it by the authority in the area. After a lot of meetings we persuaded those authorities to work together. We met the Finance Board, we came to terms by which that swimming pool could be opened again, it is functioning very well indeed and I hope the inspectors are seeing to the ventilation that we made about that time is maintained. I think this is the way forward. To go and say we are going to mess that all up again, we are going to set up a new structure . . A structure that is working well I think we should leave well enough alone.

There are areas that we should be going into. We are spending a lot of time and going to spend a lot of time probably in this debate today and I am convinced that nobody is going to change their mind how they are going to vote anyway, because I know now how I am going to vote.

Mr. Delaney: You said it!

Mr. Anderson: If it were put now, I do not think the vote would be any different from that which it would have been.

Mr. Delaney: Parish pump politics!

Mr. Anderson: Exactly Your Excellency, why not parish pump politics? This is what we are actually here to do. We are looking after the Isle of Man, we are looking after areas. Some have facilities, some have not facilities and those have to be paid for.

Mr. MacDonald: What facilities are they lacking?

Mr. Anderson: Well, if you come up our way on a dark night I will show you what facilities are lacking! (Laughter).

Mr. MacDonald: Well, you should know; you were the Chairman of the Local Government Board!

Mr. Anderson: Well, the facilities, lighting and that — there is no comparison; septic tanks and so forth — you just cannot light up a country area, you cannot provide the facilities. It does not just apply to the Isle of Man, it applies elsewhere,

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T225 but Your Excellency, I really think that we can debate this all morning and the end result will be no different from that which it would be if the vote were now taken.

The Governor: Just before we continue hon. members, a point in clarification which I have not specifically made yet, when it comes to a vote on this motion I will be taking it separately, recommendations (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), which may influence some of you if you are thinking of amendments or anything. The hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore.

Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, the hon. members for Middle who have spoken this morning are quite right to urge us to take the opposition of local authorities to the majority recommendations in the report seriously and thoughtfully and not write them off as unnecessary obstructiveness, because I think that the local authorities in the Island realise that the reports' recommendations are an interim measure, a halfway house, and not unnaturally they would like to know what it is all going to lead to eventually. They want to know to what extent the valuable role of the smaller parish authorities, as channels of communication between local problems and Central Government, will be lost. They would like to know too — and I think this is very important — to what extent it is intended eventually to delegate more responsibility and more power to the larger local authority units. What lies at the end of the corridor into which they are being led? I think these are reasonable questions to ask. I hope the mover will enlarge on his committee's thinking. If the ultimate intention is a shotgun marriage of Douglas and Onchan, I think that that will be a stumbling block; it is going to take an awful lot of wooing to persuade both parties of the benefits of such a move, and an unwilling liaison will never work at all. I personally believe that the five local authority structures of the 1966 report would be a better pattern to aim towards.

However, I cannot go along with the hon. members who have spoken this morning in their entirety, because there is clearly a great need for some reorganisation of local authorities. I cannot support the minority report. The widespread apathy that so distresses us towards local authority affairs I am sure is in part due to the past process of taking away power from the local areas and concentrating more power in the hands of Central Government. (Hear, hear). I would welcome a reversal of this process, and if that means a combination of smaller authorities into more viable decision-making units, so be it, but we need to know a lot more about the details before a final decision can be made on that.

If I might direct two specific questions to the hon. mover, why is Marown included in the eastern district instead of the west? And secondly, in the suggested postal ballot system, what safeguards are envisaged to prevent the wide range of possible misuses?

Mr. Duggan: Your Excellency, I do not agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Maddrell. I think it is nothing short of scaremonger- ing. They are old-fashioned views, and he is still acting like a commissioner. I rise to give my full support to the main report, because I feel it should have the effect

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T226

of bringing the authorities concerned to be much more efficient and therefore cost-saving to the public. The present system is very chaotic and totally unsuitable. If local authorities wish to become more effective with more control of their undertakings they should also support this report. Now is the time for change, and I ask hon. members to support the main report and to ignore the minority report made by the hon. member of Council Mr. P. Radcliffe.

Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, there appears to be a hope in the higher echelons of Government that, if the administration of Government is changed around and innovation created, it will be the panacea of all our ills, all our misfortunes and bring instant recovery, prosperity and improved living standards for all. First, we have ministerial government and today we have district councils. Now I ask this hon. Court — and the question is: Will there by any tangible benefit to the majority of the people of this Island with the formation of district councils. The answer I give is, there will be no tangible benefit. It will only create more government, more bureaucracy and more public expense, and people want less government and they do not want these district councils. Now we have had from the hon. mover a history lesson of the past and I would just like to say a few words on an example of what has happened through reorganisation on another Island. N.P. In 1973 the Westminster Government set about reorganising by amalgamating the smaller councils into larger units with the promise of greater devolution of power — something that the hon. member for Peel has been talking about — and that reorganisation was against the wishes of the ratepayers and their elected representatives, but to the bureaucrats of that time it was like manna from heaven; it meant instant promotion, instant salary increase and the prospect of employment for their wives and children in the new appointments to be created, and the benefit of the change to the populace at large was more officialdom, more inflexibility of officialdom, more remoteness of officialdom together with a doubling of the rates and, in some cases, trebling.

So I ask and urge hon. members, bear in mind that example; we want none of it here. In effect, what people want is less administration, less government, not more, and a third tier of Government. Having a national Government, district councils and the commissioners creates just that.

Your Excellency, we are all well served by our commissioners. They are a public spirited body of people; they give voluntary service in the public interest and they have local knowledge, they serve the community well, the system works and it works well and so let us leave well alone.

I will turn to just item (c) on our Agenda and I would ask the hon. mover, what harm is being done to anybody by Michael having two sets of commissioners? They are not a charge on Central Government and they go about their business in peace and quiet and cause no offence and, above all, they interefere with nobody, no area of Government, not even interfering in the affairs of West Douglas, Your Excellency! I would add, if it is the wish of Kirk Michael that there be two sets of commissioners, so be it; we live in a democracy and it is this Chamber, sir, that is here to protect the interests of democracy.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T227

Mr. Delaney: Well done, Winston!

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, having heard that very interesting speech from St. Michael and all the angels (Laughter), I am inclined to wonder if there is any need to go on discussing it, but I feel bound to comment on this report as I signed it, because in some respects I think that my own thinking is not entirely in accordance with the report which I have signed.

It seems to me, when we look at the local government system, that we have to measure the success of the system against three criteria. The first criteria is whether it is financially viable and equitable, the second one is whether it in fact reflects the community that it is trying to govern and the third one is whether it is efficient in its administrative systems.

Now it seems to me that by any of those three criteria the system of local government in the Isle of Man at the moment can only be described as a shambles. It is financially grossly inefficient; the mere fact that we have this continuing battle about rating inequalities indicates that there is something seriously wrong, and I do not believe that in their hearts the country members can possibly disagree with that. When you expect the towns to provide for the facilities which are for the benefit also of the country people and yet you ask the townspeople exclusively to pay for them, you cannot really be surprised when the townspeople are indignant. If we look at the community responsibility aspect also, it is true that last century there were very definite differences between town and country communities but you cannot say that now. The motorcar has made an enormous difference. A great number of people work in towns, live in the country and vice versa, and many of the people who work in Ramsey live in Bride, many of the people who work in Bride live in Ramsey, there are indeed in this House members who represent towns and villages and who do not care to live in those towns and villages but live in their own rural areas where they pay less rates. One has to ask, therefore, whether the communities which the present local government system envisaged exist any more, and I would contend that they do not. I would contend that there are probably in the Isle of Man now, in real terms, only four communities and they are North, South, East and West. I cannot believe that the people of Onchan feel themselves so distinct from the people of Douglas that the mere act of crossing a street changes their nationality. I am well aware that most of the people who actually work in Douglas manage to live in Onchan and I cannot see that there is any difference in community other than the totally artificial difference whipped up for quite cynical purposes.

As far as the administration is concerned, there is no doubt at all at the moment that there is enormous duplication. There are far too many civil servants, there is a great deal of muddle and a great deal of inefficiency. I could give numerous examples of this, but for an example I give one: the Ramsey Town Surveyor is the Byelaw Officer for the town of Ramsey; the housing, however, in and around Ramsey takes no account of boundaries so he will be inspecting a new building on the other side of the road. One has to ask, why? And the answer is a totally artificial distinction when the concept of a Northern Authority would make a great

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T228 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. deal more sense. In addition, I think that if you had four local authorities you could give them the resources to do a great many more things than they do at the present, and since I think this is highly desirable that Government should be devolved back to local government it is essential, if we are to do that, that the local government authorities are equipped and able to take on those extra burdens.

Now, it seems to me, Your Excellency, that looking at the situation at the moment we really have three choices in front of us. The first choice is to do what I have heard a number of people express as the most intelligent thing to do: simply to scrap all local authorities altogether and make the Local Government Board the authority for the whole Island. I have heard former members of this Court express that view. The second alternative, as I see it, is for us to set up four functioning authorities in the way that has been suggested in this report. And the third choice is a to do nothing, and there are many who believe that if you do nothing it means 111 nothing. I urge you to think again, because the fact is that in real terms nothing has happened in the last eight years, but if you ask the members of local authorities they will say a lot has happened in the last eight years. In the last eight years, for example, in the town of Ramsey they have lost the highways, they have lost public health, the sewers have been taken over, the swimming pool has been re- structured — they have lost a great number of functions, all to the Local Government Board, and if nothing is what you decide to do, you are effectively saying that you wish the Local Government Board to take over local government in the Isle of Man and you are prepared, over a period of time, to see the existing local authorities reduced to powerless shells, because that is what will happen if you do nothing. You only have to look at the trends to be aware of that.

So I believe that it is essential that we have four authorities. Now one or two gentlemen have compared the concept of four superauthorities in the Isle of Man with what happened in the United Kingdom. I am bound to say I find the concept of comparison of an eastern local authority in the Isle of Man with the Greater London Council one that even Terry Cringle, I think, would find entertaining in his articles. The suggestion is absurd and there is no merit in it at all. I think, if you look at the realities and if you look at the north of the Island, for example there are seven local authorities, three combination authorities, three housing authorities and 48 commissioners for a population of 10,000 people which in the United Kingdom, if we are going to consider that, would not even make a Rural(' District Council.

Mr. Delaney: We are not the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cain: We are not the United Kingdom, but the realities of administration are the same. So I believe that four local authorities is what we have to go for.

Now here I start to differ, I argued in the committee that I was not happy with combination authorities; I personalty prefer directly elected authorities. I was quite prepared for a situation of four new directly elected authorities, but I am bound to say my thinking has moved on since the report was signed, and I am now inclined to the view that we would do better to simply have four directly elected

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T229 local authorities in the Isle of Man and simply scrap every other local authority. I do not see that it achieves a great deal, and I can see the point that there are considerable difficulties in trying to retain the existing pattern of local authorities with four functioning authorities. I can see the difficulties in relation to the elected members who are left behind. I can see difficulties in financing. I can see difficulties in other areas, but if this Court decides that the report is to be accepted as it is, I am quite certain that the combination authorities system, as envisaged, will work; after all, if our present commissioners can make the present system work they can make anything work (Laughter). I cannot believe that it would be a step backwards to adopt this report and I can only see it being a progressive step towards what must be the logical outcome, which is four simple directly elected authorities for the Isle of Man.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, as a member of this committee I think it is important that one states one's position quite clearly. This committee has reached this stage in following the decision of this Court; the previous Tynwald accepted that we should move towards the abolition of the domestic rate, and so far no other vote of this Court has altered that decision, and so this committee was forced to pursue that policy and in pursuit of that policy has got to move along the road. Now, the hon. member for Middle quoted myself in the last debate, saying that we had reached the point where if we move any further we would destroy the individual authorities, and ,quite honestly we are getting close to this point. If we are to continue along the way of reducing or the abolition of the domestic rates, then we have got to look very seriously at where we go. It is obvious from a financial point of view that the abolition of rates is not a thing that is going to occur very quickly. It is, even with the best will in the world, going to take years before our domestic rate could be abolished, so we have to look at the interim steps that can take place before the abolition of the domestic rate, but here I personally come up against the individual conviction that a local authority should most certainly exist — that is, an authority based on people in an area.

I would go further than that and say that the functions taken over by Central Government should return to the people. A lot of these functions should return to local authorities and certainly, if we totally abolish the domestic rate, we must be left with a system that has an input by local people. We have this in education, with the Board of Education itself divided into a Central Government body and an essentially locally based elected body which has the input of local people in education. Now if we have that in education, then we most certainly ought to have it in local government. So I personally am certainly prepared to support the policies leading to the abolition of the domestic rate, but that must be accompanied by decentralisation and the involvement of local people in the management of local government. I cannot see and will never accept the alternative that the Local Government Board acts as the local government for the whole of the Isle of Man, but if we do not work out a system in which the abolition of the domestic rate can occur, then we can easily be left with the ultimate, which is the complete failure of the present system, the total centralisation of local government in the Local Government Board with possibly no local input at all, and that, as far as I am concerned, is just not acceptable and I would never accept that. I look upon this

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T230 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

Government as a developing national government, and a national government should really not concern itself with local government.

This report is an attempt to set out principles on which we can travel along the road of the abolition of the domestic rates, and I think we must get this firmly before this Court. It is no good talking about parochial ideas; this Court has decided itself that there should be abolition and until it is reversed your committee, elected by you, must set out courses of action. Now I said in the last report when I was not a member of this committee that we should involve local authorities at every stage. I still believe this. If the policies set out in the resolution and in this report are accepted, then obviously the next step is consultation along the lines set out and the principles set out to see how it could be achieved with the minimum amount of disruption.

My own local authorities, of which I have been a member like so many other members, has quite obviously asked me to vote against this report, and I can appreciate how people of Laxey and Lonan wish to have the status quo maintained; they do not wish to have a change, because every change is a source of worry and anxiety and a change of this sort may well lead to a failure to have local impact. But I think if you look more closely, you can see that if the principles of this report were followed it is a step-by-step movement which is also a step-by-step involvement of local people, and I cannot see that it will lead to some of the fears that are expressed. However, the first two items in this resolution, (a) the abolition of the existing combination authorities and (b) the establishment of the four combination authorities, is not an absolute way of doing it, and I take the point made by another member of this committee that there are alternative ways of setting this out. But I think that if we are to follow the principles that this committee was set up with the support and the votes of this hon. Court, then it is only right that we set up a way that we see it can be achieved with a minimum amount of disruption, with a maximum amount of input of local people, and I really do think that this report ought to be seriously looked at as a means of doing that.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I have listened with great interest to the debate this morning because, having been a member of the Rating Committee for many years, I fail to see how we are going to improve the situation by the recommendations of this report. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat made great play of the situation that Tynwald approved of the abolition of domestic rates. Now let us get that perfectly clear in our minds what that means. If the abolition of the domestic rate comes about, where are the authorities in the future going to find their finance? They are going to get if from two sources: either from the people who are today generating the wealth of the Isle of Man — people in business, people running the boarding houses, shops or whatever it may be, employ- ing people. Concern has been expressed many times by the people of the Isle of Man and in this Government as to the unemployment situation, so in the future we are going to abolish the domestic rates and we are therefore going to say there are two sources of revenue, either hand-outs — shall I call them that? — from Central Government or a higher-rate burden on the people in business. To me, as I said at that time, that is complete and utter nonsense.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T231

Now we look at the situation — and we are getting away, I think, on numerous occasions today, from the report. What is the report actually saying? It is saying we are going to set up four extra authorities, and these authorities are going to be composed, as everybody present here knows who has read this report, of representation from different areas, so we are going to have these four extra authorities and we are still going to maintain the representation of the local authorities as suggested. The local authorities at the present time, as the report itself admits, are doing an efficient job. "We are here faced with the dilemma which is at the centre of the problem of local government in the Isle of Man: while the majority of local authorities are small and incapable of functioning effectively in anything but a limited field they cost little and are efficient centres of discussion of local affairs".

Then it goes on to say, "In attempting to resolve the dilemma, a great deal can be learned from the examples of combination authorities. Here are bodies which in their respective fields provide an efficient system of local government which would be beyond the capabilities of the constituent authorities. The creation of further minor combination authorities, however, can only be counter productive." The hon. past Chairman of the Local Government Board — and I myself was one for years — has said, "I feel the combination authorities have been a considerable step forward in local authority administration in the Isle of Man." They have combined and realise that we are not here as a Government to speak on behalf of the town versus the country or the country versus the town; we are here to look at the situation regarding whether our taxpaper and our ratepayer are getting service for what they are paying, and at the present moment I would say that the steps which have been taken by the Central Government in trying to alleviate from the local authorities, specifically the town of Douglas, some of the tremendous rate burden which has been carried by them has already been done, and many a time at the request of those local authorities.

If you look at the Third Interim Report — and let us not forget these factors - the highways are now the responsibility of Central Government and are paid for by them; so is the street cleaning; so are sewers, so is refuse disposal, environmental I health, provision of rented houses. Why did the Central Government accept the responsibility for doing this? Purely and simply they felt that if that rate burden had to be carried by the people in that specific area, it was an excessive burden they should not be asked to pay for, and this is a continuation of the policy that we have been pursuing for several years, to alleviate the heavy rate burden in certain areas and to accept it into Central Government.

But if you are going to change the situation regarding the stability of the policy of the Isle of Man Government and start playing about, not only with elections to the House of Keys, elections to the Legislative Council, then we go on to election of local authorities, I am certain that not only people in the Isle of Man but people possibly considering coming to the Isle of Man will be beginning to wonder what we in the Isle of Man are getting at. Are we getting our priorities right? Are we seeing that the people are getting value for their taxes and their rates, or are we

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T232 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. going to create another tier of Government? As the hon. member for Peel said, "This is only a sprat to catch a mackeral." It is the first step of the ladder to say "Right, it does not work in this system because those representatives coming in from the small local authorities have got to go back and report back to their parish commissioners, village commissioners or whoever it may be, and it is never going to function in this system as now suggested, so we are going to find, therefore, that we are going to set up four central local authorities eventually, and some hon. members have said we should take back from Central Government the responsibilities now they have taken over, and transfer them back to these four groups. Why did we move them in the first place? Because nobody in the Isle of Man could accept that even the combination of these authorities could pay for the services that Central Government have taken over, and if we are dealing with the report which is before us today, this report specifically states that none of the duties taken over by Central Government shall be transferred back to any of these authorities. It condemns itself throughout the whole report as being impractical, impossible to function and unquestionably one that should be thrown out without any further consideration.

We have a responsibility, hon. members, as I said earlier, to everybody in the Isle of Man. You are not going to get any benefit for the people, by this projected four -authority system and I certainly think that the best thing to do with this is to leave it to the committee to get on, as I have said in my minority report in the last paragraph — and I think it is worthy of reading "My recommendation is that the committee should concentrate on its original remit, namely to consider the fair distribution of expenditure arising from the provision of amenities available to all, an objective that this Government has been progressing for some considerable time." I sincerely hope that members will bear that in mind, because to me, regardless of what has been said today of the impracticability of the parish authorities, the village authorities or whatever they may be, they have a duty to perform at very little cost, as the hon. member for Michael said — and I congratulate him on what I thought was an excellent speech, it was very forthright and stated exactly the case. I know the hon. members for Douglas may feel that he is speaking specifically for an area at the present moment where there is a low-rate burden. I am not for one moment saying that we do not appreciate the fact that members representing Douglas realise the burden of rates within Douglas. I have also emphasised the fact that this Government has taken considerable steps and I am quite prepared to take further steps to have this done.

The hon. member in charge of the resolution made a remark, "Note what the Chairman of the Local Government Board said on a previous occasion when it was suggested that further responsibilities should be taken over by Central Govern- ment." I will also note the fact that that same member is known to have said, as far as local authorities are concerned, "If I can get the rate of Douglas down, that is my main objective, whether it is paid for by Central Government or otherwise, and as far as whether Douglas has got a Mayor, an administration, a Corporation, I could not care less; what I am concerned about is the rate burden of the town." Is this the way we want to look at it? If that is so, your argument should be abolish everybody in the local authority system.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T233

Mr. Delaney: If it will help the ratepayer, that is the object of the exercise.

Mr. MacDonald: That is what is happening.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: The statement is at the present moment "as far as we are concerned let us get the rates of the town reduced, regardless or not we have local authorities." And I can think of what would happen in the Isle of Man if the local authority system today was abolished. It would be complete and utter chaos, we would have more and more administrative costs and unquestionably, even if this stage is followed, it will do nothing else but in a few years you will have Planning Officers, Public Health lnpsectors, all the various activities that are now centralised put back in separate issues to these four authorities, and we would be more than overburdened with administrative staff doing non-productive work. The system we have is successful, it is costing us very little to implement it and I certainly think we should retain it.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I have listened with interest to the debate and would like to make it clear that I support — and have said so before — local authorities in the Isle of Man. Although Tynwald on many occasions, and I being a member of the Local Government Board, we often have our disagreements with these local authorities, they still play a very important role in the Island life. Much criticism has been made about the part-time clerical staff, yet if what is being envisaged here is to come about, there is no doubt whatsoever it will lead to full- time expensive clerical staff which will have to be paid by somebody, either the ratepayers of those four districts or, by the Central Government.

Some of the comments that have been made only just recently seem to be looking more at the money and not at the people. We are shouting about "Save money at any cost to the people of those areas." Does that also mean then "Let us do away with their representation?" because that seems to be what is being said.

I was quite surprised — and I am sorry the hon. member for Ramsey is not still in this hon. Chamber to hear the rest of the debate. He said that the local authorities are financially grossly inefficient. I do not believe that is so. Some costs are too great for local authorities to bear, there is no doubt about that, and that does not just apply to the Isle of Man, that also applies in the United Kingdom where Government give major grants. I believe we will have more inefficiency if we centralise into Government. Look at the criticism that does come from what Government does and also from certain areas that deal directly with people of this Island. If we give the local authorities back powers it will cost considerably more, because there will be duplication of specialised staff and this has been warned on many occasions, and I will come to some of those points later.

I was also concerned with the comment the hon. member, Mr. Cain, made when he said "The Local Government Board, if all else fails, should become the — and he emphasised 'the' — local authority. I have not heard such rubbish spoken here before — absolute rubbish to bring everything into one local authority within

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T234 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

Government. If you want trouble, that is the way to create it. Take away the right of the local people to have some say in their government and you will have trouble and I would be totally opposed to that.

There were some points made, Your Excellency, regarding the lack of consultation, and I would like to cover those points with the local authorities. The Local Government Board did circulate these local authorities after the last Tynwald when this report was deferred, and it was almost unanimous opposition to the report's recommendations by the local authorities. Only Douglas has expressed support, which I must say seems to be somewhat unusual, considering they are often shouting that they cannot afford to do this, that and the other. There has been absence of consultation by the committee with local authorities and the Local Government Board, other than the chairman's own attendance at some of the meetings ex officio.

I believe there would be problems with postal ballots which has also been put forward, you only have to look at the problems the Assessment Board have with getting responses. The creation of an additional tier of local government, which assumes the existing authorities will continue indefinitely, has been criticised as being inefficient and cumbersome. Linked to this is the question of what functions the local authorities will perform when their principle activities are hived off. They are simply to be electoral colleges, because that has been said — what is the point of just reporting back to members sitting in a room who cannot do anything about it? If the combination authorities are to take over the main functions, it would surely be better for them to employ the necessary staff than to borrow or hire staff from local authorities which are existing; this would be totally unsatis- factory. You cannot bring together in a combination authority separate local authorities with different responsibilities and say there will be no changes for example, in combining Douglas and Santon does the new authority provide byelaw and sewage services, removing those duties from the Local Government Board insofar as they relate to Santon, or are those functions surrendered to the Local Government Board insofar as they relate to Douglas?

The transfer of housing, Your Excellency, a point which has been mentioned many times — I think it is worth noting that the recommendation is on the Agenda of the transfer of first-stage planning and housing to new authorities. If I take the housing first, the Local Government Board's housing stock, if they transfer it to the combination authorities, they have 1,164 units and it is a very conservative figure if you take them at £15,000 each. That would be £17Y2 million worth of housing. The idea is presumably to hand this over to the four authorities. There have been calls from Tynwald in the past for a single functioning housing authority to ensure maximum consistency and ease of movement of tenants around the Island as the need arises, and we all have the problems where we have people who cannot get into local authority housing districts that are now held by authorities. The Local Government Board has just computerised its housing administration at some considerable cost to Government. If we then take the first-stage planning, this sounds a good idea, but what is the justification for this proposal? There is absolutely nothing in the report, Who wants this change?

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T235

Mr. MacDonald: The local authorities.

Mr. Brown: There is nothing in the report, although we have heard rumbles in the past from local authorities, some who want to have this responsibility but that is not universal. Local authorities are in any case now fully consulted on all developments in their areas, and it is unusual for the planning committee to override the local authorities wishes. Decisions are usually deferred pending receipt of local authorities views. Even if local authorities wishes are overridden, the local authority may lodge an appeal to an independent tribunal. The local authorities wishes are overriden only when the Planning Committee consider it desirable. The position would be no different under the Select Committee's proposals; the board would still be able to overrule local authorities by exercising its own discretional repeal, and this I believe would cause even more friction between local authorities, especially if you give them a power and then have the right to take that away at any time it is thought necessary.

There is a need to keep planning national rather than regional. There is a need for an all-Island approach on planning in order to secure efficient land use and an adequate allocation of land for different purposes. A local planning approval might commit Central Government to massive expenditure on infrastructure in terms of water, gas, electricity and roads something under the system that we would not be able to control unless the Local Government Board was to come in and stop certain plans going ahead. Central control is necessary in order, on occasions, to override local views in the national interest — and I am sure we saw that when we had the problem over building the breakwater. Devolution of planning would be contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee of Tynwald on a Town and Country Planning approved by Tynwald in 1974. The general trend of constitutional development, which is towards greater centralisation and an assumption of central responsibilities for more services such as water, gas, fire services, public transport, highways and now for the Home Affairs Board, the amalgamation of the electricity undertakings — surely we have been working one way and now we are suddenly saying "Let us go back the other way" and give more back to the areas without really them being able, maybe, to cope with the job.

Planning is a technical function requiring professional advice and good administration. Planning is not simply a matter of a group of people getting together looking at a plan and saying "Yes" or "No", as may be seen to be what it is. Applications have to be advertised — one wonders are we to have four sets of advertisements in the paper? Pre-planning meeting consultation at officer level can involve Planning Officers, Quantity Surveyors, Public Health Inspectors, Fire Service, Health and Safety Inspectors, Highway Authority, Gas, Water, Electricity authorities not to mention the applicant's technical advisers; many of those to be consulted actually work within the Local Government Board. Are all these officers to be required to attend the offices of all the combination authorities every time they deal with planning? Professional staff need to attend planning meetings to advise the Planning Committee. Administrative staff experiences in planning law and practice have to frame conditions for attaching to planning permission, conditions which will stand up in law and cover all eventualities, and in the past

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T236

there have been problems because this has not been the case; we have not had the experience to protect the Island's interests and things have slipped through, and we must now allow that to happen again.

There need to be centrally controlled records maintained up to date, which we now have and are on microfilm. There is a continuing need for enforcement of planning law and conditions requiring a permanent enforcement staff. What would happen to that? Would they then have to have four lots of enforcement staff? How would the small combination authority sustain professional staff and administration necessary? If this cost was to fall on the ratepayers of that area there is no doubt whatsoever that the rates that we are hoping to do away with, or ease, would actually increase. Have the cost implications of the proposals been assessed? They do not seem to have been according to the report. The Local Government Board, I know, have not met with this committee in my time as a member of this board, and I am sure the other members would agree with that.

I believe these changes which are put forward, Your Excellency, would be very expensive for the people in the Isle of Man in the long term. We talk about abolishing rates and I am in support of abolishing rates. The problem would be, Your Excellency, that if we accept what is said here we will firstly create a more expensive form of government, and then expect the taxpayer to pay for that more expensive form of government. There may be problems within the report; there may be problems within the local authority. I believe, and as an ex-member of the Castletown authority, that they have an important role to play; there is this local contact which we within Government do not have, and I certainly have noticed that since I have become a member of this hon. Court, because I spend most of my days in Douglas, not in the area that I was elected from, and therefore I am sure other members have a similar situation.

We have, Your Excellency, the report here, and it seems to be a bit of a play to me, we have one thing in this report which may be not what was wanted by some of the committee, and then suddenly this morning we get another piece of paper which I presume will be moved later and which goes to the other extreme, the views of some other committee. I wonder just what we are about in this hon. Court, and the people of the Isle of Man must wonder what we are about in this hon. Court. I can assure you there are far more important things I would rather be at than trying to sort this one out at this time. There may be problems in local authorities, there may be problems that we are all concerned with but at this moment you tell that to people who are unemployed, the people who are trying to keep businesses going within this Isle of Man, and here we are spending extra days in this hon. Chamber debating something that to me is way down the list of importance.

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, when I received this report and read the cover which states "The Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Rating of Domestic Property", I read the report from cover to cover and I found it hardly dealt at all with the subject for which this committee was appointed, but dealt with means of carving up or abolishing in some cases the authorities throughout the Island. Many of us do recall when the hon. member,

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T237

my friend, Mr. Kneale, moved this resolution on the 12th December 1978 — "that Tynwald is of the opinion that all rates on domestic property throughout the Island should be abolished," and then we read on "that the present system of rating of domestic policy and the alternative ways of providing local authorities with the funds for them to carry out," what we were talking about, Your Excellency, at this time was the unfairness of rating, the fact that in one house there lives the old widow who is dependent upon the pension and the pension only, whilst next door in the same type of house, there is a man, his wife and two children bringing in four wages, and the old widow pays the same amount of rates as the four people next door, and it was thought that this was unfair.

So we, Tynwald, appointed this committee and many of us voted for it — there are a lot of you here who have spoken in support and who voted for this principle — to have a more fair distribution, a fair collection of the money, and this committee was appointed for that purpose. Now the means they seem to find is carving up the authorities, forming an extra tier and all sorts of things of this kind, which have nothing to do with what the Court originally wanted them to do. Nobody has mentioned so far the possibility of a local income tax, a tax upon householders so that this widow that I referred to — I always like to paint the picture as nicely as I can, and refer to the widow who only has her mite, sir, as compared with the great rich man who lives next door. Well, they would assess the widow and she would pay precisely nothing, and this is what we would like, this is what the hon. member for West Douglas wanted — the man next door with his two sons working and earning £200 a week each ...

Mr. MacDonald: Where are they? They must be working for the Government.

The President of the Council: Just have a look around and you will find that there are such people and they are earning ... That perhaps is a slight exaggeration, Your Excellency (Laughter). One must be given the right to paint the picture as one sees it. This was the object of the exercise in the first place, to cover up these differentials, so that the people who were earning a small amount of money, even though they lived in an older house, many of them were confined to this older house because that was their own house and they did not want to move on to smaller properties and it was to find a fair distribution whereby we should have a correction. But it distinctly said — and this was an amendment to Mr. Kneale's motion and it was subsequently carried by this Court the "Present system of rating of domestic property and the alternative ways of providing local authorities with the funds to enable them to carry out their statutory functions."

Many of us heard my hon. friend, Mr. Kneale, on Manx Radio, expounding this particular report and I think he did very well. There is one thing about Mr. Kneale: ' he is a most honourable and honest man, a very forthright man, and when he was asked by his interviewer, they said to him, "Oh! Mr. Kneale, I see you are creating four new authorities and you are retaining all the existing authorities." "If I had my way, I would have done away with them too" he said. In this report it does say, in order to get the support of his fellow members on the committee, that he should retain all the existing authorities, but Mr. Kneale himself said on Manx Radio so

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T238 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. that all could hear "If I had my way, I would do away with all the authorities." This is the thing. I believe we have discussed at some length this particular report, and I subscribe to those people who think that this second tier . . . Incidentally, these regional authorities the first to be set up was in Marashen Crescent in connection with the old folk's home down there and it was a very desirable thing to do so that the local people in that area, knowing the people, could recommend who should go into that particular accommodation, and other authorities were set up in particular areas for particular purposes and they were very desirable. Now it does suggest that those should be abolished. I think that would be a retrograde step; many people get visited by the people in the area and I think it is a most desirable thing to keep those authorities. To set up these new authorities is a different thing altogether, and I believe it would be quite wrong.

Somebody questioned the difference between certain communities, and they said, "What is the difference between Onchan and Douglas? In the short time at my disposal I will try to tell you. (Laughter).

Mr. Anderson: Not today!

The President of the Council: I am well accustomed, Your Excellency, to the baracking of this Court, and members who have been here a fair time will know that the more they do this the longer I become, (Laughter) so I would recommend that perhaps they should just hold their powder until their turn comes to speak. What is the difference between a community like Onchan and a community like Douglas? These authorities like Onchan, Laxey, Port Erin, Port St. Mary and Castletown have a community spirit; they have a community whereby they work the little villages too — lovely little villages. (Interruption) Douglas is impersonal. Who ever heard of Pulrose and Willaston getting together in some form of activity in order to help?

Mr. Ward: Of course, they do. Don't talk nonsense, Jack!

Mr. Duggan: A load of rubbish.

The President of the Council: Well, you will have the opportunity to tell us about these! (Laughter) I can say, Your Excellency, when many of here who served on the local authority in places like Onchan — because Onchan was mentioned - we would organise all sorts of events, for example, and we ourselves, not our officer or servant, would go down and assist in this particular organisation — with some success, I might add, Your Excellency, and enable this authority who had this community spirit to charge a less rate to their ratepayers which was greatly appreciated by their ratepayers. I think this is not a bad thing. Do we find bands of Douglas people getting up with some object of trying to keep down the Douglas rates and organising . . .? (Interruption) Well, we will be hearing about that (Laughter). But I do say there is a decided difference. We do know that Douglas, for instance, has a brass band and up until quite recently that band was supported by the ratepayers of Douglas. I support them to the full and I hope to go to their subscription concert at which His Excellency will be attending, I understand, in

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T239 order to raise money for that particular band. They are going to do what other authorities have done; Onchan, Ramsey, Laxey and Rushen and raise their own money, not get it out of the rates. That is community spirit; there is a big difference, and I would urge that this Court, by accepting this report, would abolish this community spirit.

We do not want to have any time with any amendments; we want to just oppose the lot — that is the only way to do what many of use would want to do, to have no time for any amendment that may be forthcoming, because I believe it would be detrimental to the cause that Mr. Kneale, my hon. friend, is after: find a means to relieve the widow or the person who finds it hard to pay these rates, even, if it means the person next door who has more money paying a little more. This is what we supported you for in the first place, not so that you should abolish a community like Kirk Michael. There is a lot of tradition going back, a lot of history. The hon. member for Council, my very good friend, is always quoting; he goes back to Orry the Dane (Laugher), but I am not going to go back so far, Your Excellency, because time would not permit, but the hon. member will have a chance to tell us about where I am wrong.

But I do say there is only one way to deal with the report and that is that you must completely reject everything it contains, and still send back to this committee our very good wishes to them (Laughter) and ask and implore them to do the job they were first appointed to do; and that is, to find some way — be it a local income tax — some way to find that they should have people paying according to their ability to pay for the services that are created. Do not destroy these communities or else you will regret it.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, first of all I would like to dispel the myth of Onchan that Orry was not Orry, and Orry was not a Dane; obviously in Onchan they do not know their history! The thing that really strikes me is that I have always wondered why in the Isle of Man we never fly the United Nations flag. It was United Nations Day yesterday, and I can now speak quite clearly that if the nation of Onchan cannot exist with Douglas, if the nation of Michael cannot exist with the nation of Peel, then how in God's name can the United Nations hope to achieve anything in the world? Yesterday was United Nations Day, as I said; 300 men died trying to keep the peace in the Lebanon, the E.E.C. Common Fisheries Policy talks collapsed in Europe, the Island's dole queue was reported to be over 2,000 people, people who cannot afford to pay the rates in Douglas and the subsidies for over-production of agricultural produce which very few people can afford to eat are continuing to cause dissention.

Your Excellency, these are the things which I believe Tynwald should be worried about; as it is we have got ourselves in a real shambles and the shambles started a- new in 1966. What we have come to talk about today on this report are rates, and let us get back to rates. When you get a parish — and let us understand this, parishes were not set up by the people of the Isle of Man, parishes destroyed sheadings and were set up by the Church to ensure that the vicar could control people instead of the State. Let us not kid ourselves that parishes are things of great beauty.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T240 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

They are not things of great beauty; they disorganised the administration of the Isle of Man. The sheading system was set up so we could have good administration run by the local people. However, when you look at the rating list in Appendix 5 — and this is a thing that really interests me — obviously Mr. Anderson is going to support a system where he pays a 7 pence rate and obviously Mr. Delaney of Douglas is going to say, "I want some change if my old age pensioner, the poor "widow's mite" person, is going to pay £1.26.

The whole thing is rotten. Why is it rotten? Purely and simply: greed and envy; absolute greed. Why should a person be one side of the road in Ramsey and pay the Ramsey rate —and I can remember this when I was on the Local Government Board — and the person the other side of the road pay a quarter of the rate, all getting the same services, one side paid by the taxpayer, the other side paid by the ratepayer? This is what is wrong, and in 1966 when I sat on the Local Government Board for a year and when Cecil McFee, the late Tom Faragher, the late George Gale and myself produced a report with Mr. Radcliffe — that was the report; one page was Mr. Radcliffe's response, his minority report.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: That was enough.

Mr. MacDonald: That was ample because you have done exactly what you were proposing should not happen, you have destroyed the local authorities, and as you are blaming the hon. member of the Keys, Mr. Kneale, for saying they should not exist, you have said to me quite often they should not exist; they can in name only.

Mr. Radcliffe: You prove it!

Mr. MacDonald: How can I prove it when you spoke to me? Victor will probably prove it — he is good at proving things! But it is absolute greed that some people think they can come and work in Douglas, contribute nothing to Douglas and live outside the boundary of Douglas when you have, I believe, some of the senior officials of Douglas themselves realising the rate advantage of living outside not even living in the town they are working in. How many people living in Onchan work in Douglas and get their livelihood from Douglas? And yet we have people here today saying, "For God's sake, no change; let us keep our low rates, let the towns continue to pay." I have said this once before here, the towns can retaliate; they have been very good, but they can retaliate quite simply, and it happens in other countries. If you come into a town with your car to work, you are charged a tax for parking your car in the town, £1 per day would do — it would produce for Douglas £1 million a year.

The President of the Council: What would the shopkeepers say?

Mr. MacDonald: It would not kill the shopkeepers, do not kid yourself on that. The bulk of the people coming in are working for the Government; they could not work in Onchan. It would not kill the shopkeeper, because the country relies on the town to sell produce. It is happening in other towns in Germany and Europe

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T241

— if you come in you pay a parking tax. That is not greed, that is clearly trying to help the poor widow who is paying £1.28, that is what it is all about.

Your Excellency, I would like to read a very short piece out of the 1966 report when we can see the rating problem arising and the organisational problem of local government. "In the opinion of the board" said Mr. McFee, "The present system if continued in the Island may result in the ultimate destruction of local government in the true sense. My board does not wish this to take place. Seventeen parishes, five small village districts, four towns in an Island 30 miles by 12 miles with a population of under 50,000 with no rating power can get nowhere at all except by Central Government slowly but surely taking over the functions of the local authority". The majority of the board at that time — Mr. Radcliffe did not agree with this — decided it was completely wrong in principle. Besides being a super- visory authority, the Local Government Board — and it was the board speaking - • is becoming one of the largest functioning authorities in the Isle of Man. It was then a large housing authority, a large drainage authority where we administered 32 drainage districts. This, we believe, is not really the work of a Central Government board and there is no doubt about it, this is the problem and it is still with us. 1966 or 1983, people are still, purely because of the rates . . . The country members — I can see them sitting here today — apart from possibly one or two, will still vote solidly against it. It is the rate that is behind the whole lot, not because they have existed for a long time, not because they are capable of running their own affairs — which they are not, otherwise they would be running their own affairs.

I sat down last night and thought about what has happened to Peel. It is not a city, it is a town at the moment; it never was a city because the only city part is where the castle is. But when I looked at it, what has happened in this period. The entire housing deficiency has been taken over by Government. Why did Government take it over? Because at the time we were suggesting that, as the country districts were getting houses built out of the taxes, they should contribute a rate fund towards it, but rather than get them to do that the solution was obviously for the Government, — this was what other people thought — to take over the deficiency so they lost the deficiency. In the end "He who pays the piper calls the tune", so they have really lost control although they can still allocate the houses; they have lost control of their housing. The next thing that happened, one of the main things, is that the streets, roads, the pavements have now been taken over and paid for by the Government. All right, maybe some of the towns are acting as an agency of Government, but in the end, as my local authority discovered, it is the Highway Board that will decide how many men, what money is spent on doing the work, so they have lost that.

Local health — in Peel the previous Town Clerk was the local Health Officer, but now it is done by Central Government. Mr. Radcliffe, in his report in 1966, said, "If you do this and try to have four local authorities," plus Douglas as a borough council, we decided then, "You will have to give them one each." The Local Government Board has now got six. We could give them one each and they would still have two to play with themselves; it has not saved a thing. Every time Govern-

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T242 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. ment take over and concentrate on Douglas the more the local authorities cease to control their own affairs.

Housing for the elderly is run by Government. They call it a Centralised Combination Authority, but it is run by Government and is planned by Govern- ment. They have a bit of say in it, the deficiency on it is financed by Government. Even our Ward Library in Peel — a voluntary library; what happens there? I believe the town last year contributed £3,700 towards it; that was mainly for wages and upkeep, but the books are coming from the Rural Library — and now we are going to be told we will have to pay for them — so again the town is losing control of the library service. Of course the fire services are all centralised now, so the local authorities get very little say in that.

So what do the commissioners do? What have they got left? They have got summer amenitites, bowling greens, swimming pool, tennis courts; they would like very much to have a covered swimming pool like the other three areas of the Island have got, but they cannot afford it. But as everybody else is getting a hand out for one, Peel would like one too. We certainly cannot afford it. The childrens' playing ground at Boilley Spittal — the army offered to build that, I believe, but it was turned down so we paid for it. Car parks — these were built with Government money. I remember being on both the Local Government Board and the Finance Board when it happened. They keep the beaches clean, and they only rent the beaches. They have got a tip for shells behind Peel Hill which they make some money on and stinks to high heaven in the summer. We have got a lorry park which is slowly pushing the wall of the Mill Road into the road — and I have been looking at this for the last month; it is slowly falling in. We have got three public toilets and we have got a very fine piece of ground called the Headland, and, of course, we have got street lighting. We can recommend where the street lights go, and when the bulbs go out we can tell the Electricity Board to put another in. I do not know whether we have still got the entire Promenade, but I notice the Highway Board men are now cleaning the drains.

So what has the proud city of Peel got left to really run? The system Government is using and adopting is slowly but surely destroying the pride of the city of Peel so much so that the commissioners last week, who had decided to run a Centenary Banquet to celebrate 100 years of local authority in the town, had so few people responding they had to cancel it because the people I talk to ask, "Just where are we going?" What have our commissioners got to do today after 100 years of local government? Your Excellency, it is not the local authority's fault; it is Government's fault, and the main blame I put on Tynwald, because in 1966 greed stopped them adopting a report which was soundly thought out, a year was spent on it, the bulk of that report, apart from the half-page Mr. Radcliffe produced, was in opposition and because we had the audacity, although every member on that report was re-elected with a big majority into the House of Keys, we were swept right off the Local Government Board and we got a rurally orientated Local Government Board...

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Who was swept off the Local Government Board?

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T243

Mr. MacDonald: We were.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: You were; I was not (Laughter).

Mr. MacDonald: You were the minority, and unfortunately in the House of Keys the majority do not represent the majority; they represent the minority, and so we were swept off for even daring to suggest that local authorities should go, and it never really got to Tynwald; it went on to the shelf with all the others Mr. Kneale has talked about this morning.

But behind it all, Your Excellency — and this is what I would stress to Tynwald today — let us start thinking of people and ratepayers and taxpayers, because one of these days — and I have said it before — the people of the towns will say "Enough is enough; we are paying no more rates until rating is equalised in the Isle of Man." It is long past time. Let us not kid ourselves that the country has not got all the facilities. They have got every facility they want if they pay for it; the towns are paying for it. They have paid for the facilities they want; if they do not want them, they need not have them, but they should not be getting money from the taxpayer to do it. This system should be equal to all men under the sun in the Isle of Man. No inequality — equality is what democracy is all about, and if any member here today votes against the recommendation that there should be four — I would myself have preferred four plus one, the Borough of Douglas which I consider to be a borough council with all its own rights and traditional rights — think what they are doing is putting the clock further and further back until the day will come when local government will utterly collapse and everybody in the Isle of Man will have to pay through the nose for the failure of Tynwald whether they like it or not.

Mr. Faragher: Your Excellency, I have no wish to state the obvious reactions to this report and its consequences, but I would state from the outset that I am opposed to the principle of its recommendations. I think it is most unfortunate that this report was not used as a discussion document with the local authorities. Indeed, I was appalled that the original intention was to debate this report in July before the local authorities had even laid eyes on a copy. Consultation with local authorities regarding this report was essential, and indeed I have heard one member of the committee saying there was no need to consult the local authorities because we know their opinions, and yet I have heard this morning from the mover, Mr. Kneale, that these opinions they are quoting — some of them could very well be 20 years out of date. He quoted in 1963 that Port Erin and Port St. Mary would have favoured amalgamation. Well, if he had asked them in 1973 or 1983 he would have got a completely different answer.

This report proposes to create a new level of administration, and whilst it is stated in the report that existing local authorities would be retained, the chairman has himself publicly stated that he would prefer to see them abolished, and the writing is on the wall in very large letters for the local authority if this report is accepted. The proposals, if implemented, would undermine their existence by creating a new system which itself would, I believe, be unwieldy, inefficient and in

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T244 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

urgent need of change and when it was changed there would be one casualty, and that would be the existing small local authorities. This is not to say that existing local authorities do not have their faults, but the system is time-proven and it works.

I would agree with the hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Brown, when he said Tynwald has got more urgent business at a time of economic recession than to be juggling about with the local authority structure on this Island. The report proposes that the day-to-day running of the districts shall be carried out by existing local authorities under the supervision of the combination authority; a clear duplication of administration, and I would defy anybody to say that a local authority could operate within the framework of these combination authorities with less staff than they have today.

The constitution of the combination authorities — I am most surprised to find that whilst one Government committee has gone to great lengths to achieve equitable distribution of Tynwald seats, this other committee is recommending new authorities where representation of districts will be far from equitable. For example, Rushen would elect a representative who would he representing 670 from that area; Port St. Mary would elect one who would be representing 780; Port Erin's would be representing 1400, and Castletown's 1500 — hardly equitable.

The report says a great deal can be learned from the example of the existing combination authorities. Indeed it could, but one of the most obvious conclusions must be that combination authorities, which have been set up to support a singular function, for example, the elderly people's home, can work exceptionally well, but given that that combination was achieved voluntarily. However, a combination forced on local authorities or a local authority is quite a different story as the history of the shotgun marriage of the Port Erin Commissioners to the Southern Swimming Pool Board illustrates. Add to this the much wider brief of the proposed combination authority with the inevitable difference in priorities of the component parts, and a turbulent future is assured. To quote from an earlier report mentioned in this committee's report, it said, "Without the assistance of the Local Government Board, the present system would have broken down". That was in 1949, and here we are 34 years later with substantially the same structure although with some changes in responsibility. The implication is that Central Government resents the existence of, and begrudges assistance to, local authorities. They have both a common responsibility, which is to protect and promote the interests of the people of this Island, and I see no reason why, with reasonable co-operation and mutual assistance, the present structure of local government cannot continue.

This report at times goes a long way to justify the retention of the status quo and then promptly does a sharp about-turn to propose the opposite. It, for example, acknowledges that many of the arguments of parish authorities are not without validity today — and then immediately proposes to undermine their existence. It says "Larger units can lead to a loss of touch and interest" and this, Your Excellency, I believe, is the principle at stake as regards local government. Local government essentially deals with items of a very local nature, and it requires

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T245

people with a deep knowledge and understanding of their district for it to function effectively and efficiently.

Larger units — what exactly is large? What is the optimum size to maintain the very important personal touch of interest? I would suggest that that size is the same now as it ever was, and that is: small. Small enough for ratepayers to know their representatives, if not personally then at least by sight, what they do, where they live, to encourage an exchange of ideas and problems; small enough for the ratepayer to associate himself with that local authority's property as being his and not somebody else's. Local government must not seem to be faceless, and this principle indeed extends not only to local authorities but it applies to industry as well. Many of the successful factories and businesses are small, and the principle that "bigger is better" has been overturned in industry and local authority time and time again.

Local authorities are a strong important binding thread in the fabric of our society, and whilst their price may be estimated I would suggest that their value is very much underestimated. It has been my pleasure and privilege to serve on a local authority with some fine people sufficiently interested in and committed to the well-being of their district to stand for public office with all that that entails, and for most of them that is the limit of their political aspirations; indeed, politics is a word many would not associate with what they see as a public duty. They have a pride in their village and their parish, some have been there for years, they have received no payment and they want none, and as long as there are people with a conviction to serve and maintain local government on this Island, we should be supporting them. We should endeavour to maintain authority and responsibility for local authorities at a level which will assure their continued interest.

I believe that the suggestion for a postal ballot for local authorities is an insult to them. I will support a postal ballot for local authorities when there is a postal ballot for the House of Keys, and not before.

Hon. members, the proposals contained in this report pave the way for the destruction of the existing local authorities. I believe local authorities still have an important role to play in the Isle of Man's future; we should be retaining pride in our villages and our parishes. The devolution of authority and responsibility is a principle which has now been widely accepted, and I have heard members this morning applauding devolution to four authorities. What is given with one hand is being taken away with the other. I believe that the abolition of the domestic rate will be very difficult to achieve, if not impossible, but there is a clear need, however, for a more equitable distribution of the rate burden within this Island and whilst I do not support the principle of an all-Island rate, there is, I believe, a clear case for the reduction of differentials between town and parish rates, and to this end I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Council, Mr. Radcliffe, and I oppose the recommendations in this report.

Mr. Moore: I am not going to repeat all that has already been said or we would be here all day — and we probably will be all day, Your Excellency — but I just want to come back to one or two of the points that have been raised, because if

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. T246 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. this Fourth Interim Report of the Rating Committee of which I am a member does nothing else but shake this hon. Court up to the extent that we get back to what we set out to do in the first place . . . And let us read the motion again; we are going miles around. Mr. President of the Council reminds us what we were set up to do; the motion which was carried by this hon. House is that "In view of the growing support among Tynwald members for the abolition of the domestic rate, Tynwald is of the opinion that the Select Committee on rating should immediately consult with the Finance Board to bring this about." That is the motion, plain and simple; to bring about the abolition of the domestic rate.

The steps we have taken up to now and this is the Fourth Interim Report - in getting rid of some of the anomalies which we could see — and we can start from before this particular resolution was passed — the abolition of the fire rate, the abolition of the education rate, roads, housing, environmental health, refuse disposal, sewerage have all been taken over by Government, and what has it done? It has purely and simply enlarged the differential between our country cousins and the town because every one of these matters has meant a reduction in the already low rates in the country areas. This is all that is done at present, and of course everybody put their hands up to our previous reports because the country members were seeing rates reduced to as low as 5 pence in the pound in certain areas when Douglas were paying 126 pence in the pound, and one of my hon. colleagues from Middle mentioned the fact that Douglas is getting all this support — and he quoted the figures quite correctly, every figure he quoted was correct; Douglas has had an enormous amount of support from Central Government, but the fact still remains that the people in Douglas, the pensioners and everybody else, are still paying 126 pence in the pound.

Now what have we said with regard to the question of combination authorities? We have not said, create another four combination authorities; what we have said is, get rid of eight combination authorities which have already been set up and concentrate in each area of the Island all of the functions which could be carried out by a combination authority and let us have four, one for each section of the Island. A simple straightforward suggestion that will at least put four authorities to do all of the duties which they are now saying Government is taking over. There is nothing very upsetting about this, except that we are now saying, "Let us get down to the basic of some sort of equalisation." I was all for equalisation of rates throughout the Isle of Man and I make no apologies for that. I would like to see the equalisation of rates right throughout the Island, and it is very well saying, "If you are in Douglas you have got light above your doorstep and you have got this, that and the other," but on the other end of the picture, of course, if you are living out in the country you have got a bus taking the kiddies to school, right from the door, you have one thing weighing up against the other and everybody should be paying an equal amount of rate, there is no question about that. All this business of saying how inefficient one group is against the other — of course, my friends in Onchan can always say that; they have always been able to hold their hands up and say, "We are a marvellous organisation, we can carry out our own duties." Of course they can, on the backs of Douglas, naturally. There are swimming pool combination authorities in every area except Douglas.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Resolution Defeated. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T247

The President of the Council: What is the position with the swimming pool authorities?

Mr. Moore: We will get around to that sometime. When we get this sorted out we will get around to it.

There is only one other thing that this motion brought out, and that was a suggestion by my hon. colleague, the President of the Council, who said, "What does Willaston do for iteself? That was one of the remarks which created quite a lot of amusement. You may not have heard of the Willaston and District Sports Club which organises their sports day in conjunction with the school and which is a very successful venture and the Willaston Sports and Social Club also run outings for the pensioners in the estate, so let us have no mistake that Onchan is not the only place who looks after them.

The President of the Council: That is very good.

Mr. Moore: Well, thank you very much, but the insinuation was that these areas never do anything, and you specifically mentioned, "What do people in Willaston do? Onchan does it all."(Interruptions). You mentioned Willaston, sir. I represented Willaston. I was a member of the Douglas Corporation for 17 years and at least I am entitled to say that I feel Douglas have a point to make, that we have introduced this point into the debate that we said at that time, let us look at the situation with the Treasury. The Chairman of Finance Board has been brought on to the Rating Committee; he is in support of this recommendation, so we are doing our job, and if you do not like the way we are doing it, there is another method you can use in this hon. Court: get rid of us and put all the clever fellows up.

The Governor: Hon. members, I will temporarily get rid of you until 2.30 p.m.! (Laughter).

The Court adjourned at 1.00 p.m.

RATING — FOURTH INTERIM REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE — DEBATE CONCLUDED

The Governor: We will continue with the debate. I call on the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Gelling.

Mr. Gelling: Hon. members, I do not intend to spend a lot of time on this matter. A great deal has been said by other members making some of the points I would have mentioned. Can I say that I find this Fourth Interim Report an extremely disappointing document, because it does nothing to remedy the deficiencies of our present system of local government, which is archaic and ineffectual, and the report adds to the burden by imposing yet another tier, which

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T248 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

can only increase the cost and confusion. We must be one of the most over- governed communities in the world, and it is high time that we called a halt to it before the taxpayers and ratepayers of this Island, who have foot the bill, revolt. They are revolting, (Laughter) or I should say they are beginning to revolt.

Mr. Delaney: Speak for your own constituents!

Mr. Gelling: When the last major revision of local government took place in the last century means of communication were slow and difficult, and few people strayed more than a handful of miles from their homes. Small communities had to be largely self-sufficient, and the village and parish commissioners which were established at that time were a very necessary means of organising community services in those areas. There were also at that time distinct differences of character and attitude between the peoples of these small communities which militated against the establishment of larger authorities. Today, however, the speed of communication, the high standard of education and the many sophistications of modern society which are universally available in towns and country have swept these parochial barriers away and brought us together to such an extent that the present multiplicity of small local authorities is. no longer necessary or justifiable, and I believe that those who would argue otherwise are thinking only of their own personal interests.

If we accept that the present system is inadequate — and I believe the majority of the electorate do, whatever the authorities in this House may think — them Tynwald must face this issue squarely and not settle for a watered down compromise solution such as is suggested in this report, but one which will provide a new, efficient; financially viable and fully functioning system capable of carrying us through into the next century, a system with real power and resources to regulate and develop the region over which it has control, and which, I am sure, will attract elected representatives and staff of real ability and qualification who can talk on equal terms with Central Government. We desperately need a partnership between local and central Government in which each respects the other to replace the present air of suspicion and animosity, which is largely born from the frustrations of trying to make the present system operate.

The nuclei of local authorities already exist and function efficiently and harmoniously in the form of the combination authorities, covering such diverse matters as refuse collection, housing and swimming pools, and these have out of necessity come into being because none of the individual local authorities which make up the combination authorities are financially or administratively capable of carrying out these functions in their areas.

With these excellent pointers to the way forward I will, therefore, only support the establishment of four new, fully functioning, regional authorities, elected by the population, to replace the existing functioning and non-functioning parish, village and town authorities, which have proved themselves unequal to the task. One might expect considerable resistance to this from the existing functioning authorities, but last week I received an encouraging paper from the Town Clerk of

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T249

Douglas — I understand that this has been circulated to all members of this Court - and I was very encouraged to find that my views are fully endorsed by the town council of Douglas. If they are prepared to hand over part of the assets and powers of the town of Douglas, together with the borough status, which is what will happen if the proportions of representation on the new authority are as set out in section 4, paragraph 5 of this report — and I do not argue with those proportions - and they are prepared to do this in order to secure a more responsible and cost effective system of local Government for the eastern district of this Island, then I believe that this hon. Court must support it, and I hope that hon. members will support the amendment which I have had tabled which reads as follows:

That for all words from "That" to the end of paragraph (c) there be substituted —

"(a) the Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee on the Rating of Domestic Property be received; and

(b) legislation be introduced for —

(i) the abolition of all existing local authorities; and

(ii) the establishment of four new local authorities for the districts described in paragraph IV.5 of the report.';•

and that (d) and (e) be renumbered (c) and (d).

I would seriously commend to your further consideration and thought the most excellent speeches made by Mr. Cain, the hon. member for Ramsey, and Mr. MacDonald, who sits on the shelf (Laughter). I believe that everything they have said is extremely important and valid. The fact that many local authorities are today opposing the provisions of the setting-up of new regional authorities, whereas some years ago they approved them, to my mind is a further example of the frustrations which now exist in those local authorities. They frankly do not know which way they are going because Government has persistently failed to give them a lead. I spent some years on Douglas Town Council, just as Mr. Cain spent some years on Ramsey Commissioners, and I can tell you that there is a considerable sense of frustration in the functioning authorities because they have had no lead from Government as to the future. It is impossible to organise a properly functioning authority when you do not know whether you are going to exist in five years' time.

It is all very well for hon. members to talk about the small local authorities taking off their jackets, picking up shovels and building football pitches. That is not the function of a local government, and I am sure if we have properly reorganised functioning authorities on this Island that are capable of taking us into the next century these people will still be taking off their jackets and helping the local community. I do not think it is going to make any difference. It does have one advantage, though: these local representatives will have the power of a fully

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T250 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. functioning authority behind them in whatever work they wish to do for their own particular community, and they will still be representing the same few people they represent now. Your Excellency, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Martin: Your Excellency, I would second the amendment, and in doing so I would like to say that in reading the Fourth Interim Report and the history preceding it, it definitely cries out for change in local government, and on listening to the mover of the resolution on the Paper, he spelled out again the need for change.

I honestly believe that the feeling of this hon. Court is again the need for change, and yet in the recommendations from this Select Committee I do not see that this change is proposed. They are recommending that four new combination authorities be set up, and this is in addition to the conglomeration of small local authorities who, I might add, are only interested in their own little patch; they are not interested in the benefit of this Island.

A Member: Rubbish!

Mr. Martin: I therefore recommend this hon. Court to support the amendment which has been so ably proposed by the hon. member for West Douglas.

Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, like the hon. member for Council, Mr. Radcliffe, I cannot understand those who are set about abolishing the domestic rate. There is no denying that it would be very wise for everyone, including myself, if there were to be no rate bill coming through the letter box. I have accepted that there were, and there still are, anomalies and I accept that these should be corrected, but if rates were to be totally abolished there is a simple question: where does the money come from?

If we listen to Finance Board, the Government cupboard is pretty bare at the present time. Government services cannot be properly maintained after giving what is only partial rate support. I would suggest that results would be a fall in the standard of services which are at present provided by the local authorities; Hon. members, is this what we want? I hope not, certainly not at the expense of other essential Government services.

I was sorry to hear this morning the hon. member for Council, Mr. MacDonald, criticise those who live outside Douglas but who work inside. This I will submit, hon. members, is an old red herring. Does he not realise that the same people work for companies in Douglas and those companies pay very heavy rates? Does he not realise that those people who work in Douglas spend most of the money that they earn in Douglas, and that is for the benefit of Douglas? We then had to listen to the hon. member for Council, Mr. Moore, talking about Onchan living on the backs of Douglas. This again, I would submit, is a very cheap remark and not worthy of further comment.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T251

Your Excellency, we are discussing the future of local authorities today, so if I act like a commissioner, then I make no apology for it. The hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Faragher, I thought made an excellent speech this morning. What he said about local authorities and those who serve on them was very true and very justified. I am opposed to the recommendations contained in the Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee on the Rating of Domestic Property, and I shall be voting against it when the time comes. This morning the hon. mover gave us a history lesson, a lot of which was unnecessary because, as my hon. colleague on my right said, times do change.

I would now like to compliment the hon. member for Council Mr. Radcliffe, for what he said this morning and for the wording of his minority report, and I hope that Tynwald will take the advice that he gives in paragraph 10 which he quoted this morning. Mr. Radcliffe posed the question in paragraph 2 and he said, "Is it for the improvement of the good Government of the Island or is it a means to find a system of spreading the cost of public amenities more equitably throughout the Island?" Whatever the answer, we do know that the vast majority of local authorities on the Island are very much opposed to this resolution, as they have every right to be.

I have received, and I am sure that everybody else has received, written objections from the commissioners of Onchan, of Braddan, Patrick, Port Erin, Port St. Mary, Arbory, Malew and Rushen, and I regret very much the necessity for saying this today, but it does appear that my very good friend the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle, is not in step with the people he represents in Government. We are all aware that the Municipal Association who represent a great many of our local authorities wished to present a memorial and be legally represented at the bar in the Court today. This, Your Excellency, is surely evidence that there is further strong objection to the recommendations under consideration. Are we saying that all these people are wrong? There may be some in this Court who believe they know better than anyone else how local authorities should function. Some may even have ulterior motives for supporting the recommendations contained in this report. If so, I would hope that they are at least in a minority.

Your Excellency, if there are any benefits to be achieved by implementing any of the recommendations contained in this report, then please let someone go out and talk to those directly concerned. The question has been asked, and I will ask it: have the members of the Select Committee consulted with the commissioners of the village and parish of Onchan who would be greatly affected by the recommendations of this report, and likewise the commissioners of the village and parish of Michael? I believe that we should throw this report out today for the main reason again as contained in paragraphs 3 and 7 of Mr. Radcliffe's minority report. If there is to be any reorganisation of our local authorities, then please let it take place only after proper and meaningful discussions, and I believe that the people to do that with the local authorities is the Local Government Board.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I find that the debate this morning is certainly an extremely interesting one, and from time to time members have raised the

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T252 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. question that we really should not be sitting here in Tynwald Court debating the local government of the Isle of Man because it is not the most important thing; we should be discussing other matters, whether it be unemployment or anything else. I would just say to hon. members of this Court that the time is never ever right for anything, but I would say to members equally that, for once, I genuinely believe that we do have the timing right for looking at local government and the government structure of the Isle of Man. What we are looking at is the government structure of the Isle of Man, and hon. members, whether you like it or you dislike it, the responsibility is on the members in this hon. Court to make their minds up, because it is this hon. Court which will decide the policy and the legislation, if it is necessary, which will be introduced into the branches to follow, but the policy machine will be established in this Court as to how we wish to see the government of the Isle of Man, government in broad terms, looked at.

I would suggest that the opposition being engendered and voiced quite firmly in this Court today to the Fourth Interim Report of this committee is engendered largely out of a very small word — fear. It is engendered because members have immediately jumped: "What is Mr. Kneale after?" That is what you have asked. You have not considered the committee's report, and it is quite evident from the remarks which have been made by members in this hon. Court this morning that a number of them have not even read the report. We have, as a committee — and as I am a signatory to this I fully support the report — considered exactly what should be the position of local government in the Isle of Man, and if I refer members to the start of the report and you look at the introduction, you will see in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 you will see exactly how it is spelt out and that accordingly in the Third Interim Report they recommended that the committee's terms of reference be extended to include a comprehensive survey of the local government structure on the Island, so when it is questioned, as it has been, that the committee should be considering rates and nothing but rates, I would suggest to hon. members of this Court that it was only last year that you actually gave the job of considering local government to the very committee who you are now trying to say should only be looking at rates.

I am a supporter, wholeheartedly — let us not make a mistake on that one, the word is "wholeheartedly" — on the abolition of the domestic rate. It is an iniquitous form of taxation. It is not fair and it is unjust, so rating is wrong in principle as far as I am concerned, so on that one, out of the window! Let us consider the view that we cannot abolish the domestic rate immediately. All right, I accept that, but the ultimate aim of this Court is already stated that we will abolish it. That is the ultimate aim of this Court so we are going to go down that road until some member in the Court is brave enough to put a resolution down to reverse it. He will not get my support, but somebody has to reverse the policy of Tynwald that we are going to abolish the domestic rate.

It has been raised — and I was glad that the President of the Council, no less, did make a suggestion following the Chairman of Executive Council's comment this morning — that there are alternatives, and an alternative which would be just in my view would be local income tax. As to exactly how, the nuts and bolts would

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T253

have to be sorted out, but if you want my policy on that I would prefer to see a local income tax replace rates and I would prefer negative income tax as far as government is concerned when we come to a social structure. Let us look at what we as individuals on the floor of this Court want, decide what the policy is going to be and let us, for Pete's sake, stick with our own beliefs so that we are not wavering around like ships at sea! Let us go in straight lines; if you have got those policies, stick with them.

My other aim whilst I am a member of this hon. Court is that I will protect and defend the local authorities, because I believe in the local authority system, and I am one of those who do not agree with centralisation to its nth degree. I believe in local government, and I was a member — everybody else says so, so I may as well — I was a member of a local authority, albeit a parish authority, and I might have been nine years in this Chamber now but I was ten years with a local authority, so it is nearly now equal. Having said that, how does the committee, not individual members of the committee, view local authorities? Does the committee, to all you doubters in this Chamber, say abolish local authorities? In no way, and if any member here can hand on heart support Mr. Gelling's amendment I will tell you now he is going to get the wrath of my judgement against that, because that is the wrong principle. The abolition of local authorities is the wrong one. But the committee come to you quite forcefully and say that the local authorities will stay — the words used are "All existing local authorities be retained to function within the framework of the proposed combination authorities."

Over the last few years — and we have had all the history lessons, we have had 1966 reports and all the others quoted at us — over those years since 1966 with the major report, what has happened to local government in the Isle of Man? I am aware, as an ex-member of a local authority on the Isle of Man — and there are a few upstairs and we might as well put it on their doorstep as well — that their biggest single concern, and certainly the biggest single concern when I was a member of a local authority, was the housing of the people of our own area and the allocation of the houses to the people of our own area, and our planning. Those were the two biggest principles which concerned the local authorities. The others, which were duties placed on the local authority, be it public health, roads, if they were functioning authorities, were duties. The ones which concerned them were the principles. Your committee is quite plainly saying to you that the local authorities will have devolved back to them the responsibilities for housing and first- stage planning. That is what the committee's report says: they will go back. In other words, irrespective of the financial position of housing and whether or not it is brought into question whether this quarter will have a bigger capital amount of housing, that could still be looked after, the capital by Government, but the allocation of those houses or decisions on the houses could very well be taken by people in the locality who know the residents of the area and are closely involved.

It does say that planning should go back as well. Now what is wrong with that? "First-stage planning," it says, "with the ultimate responsibility being in the court of the Local Government Board." Absolutely first-class when I consider what I want the Isle of Man to be! I find nothing wrong at, all in the Isle of Man being

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T254 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. different in the north and the south. If the people of the north of the Isle of Man want slightly different planning requirements from the people of the south of the Isle of Man, then let the people of the north have slightly different, or vice versa. There is nothing wrong with that, but if it comes to Government planning on a major scale, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Local Government Board. Your first stage, your nuts and bolts, as to whether Mrs. Smith should have a bungalow on that particular site or Mr. Jones should be allowed to build a garage for his house — as far as I am concerned the people in that area can jolly well get on and make that decision and can I tell hon. members, if they are all interested - and the comment has been raised by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Catlin, that I am largely out of touch with my constituents — I can tell him that the idea, or certainly one of the ideas for exactly what this committee has come up with came out of a report written by the six southside authorities to a Select Committee of Tynwald, and their division of the Isle of Man was neatly into four. Now that was done at a time when I was still a member of a local authority and I sat with the local authority in the south when that happened and I can equally say that there are members of the southside authority still who sat on that committee along with me when that was the decision the six southside authorities came up with it at the same time, and if we want to take it to its ultimate conclusion, it was raised by the other member of Middle, Mr. Maddrell this morning, that maybe the committee were frightened to go forward to put their views. Well there is absolutely no way - I will speak for myself, but I know all the other members of the committee equally well — that I would be frightened to put my view in any respect, least of all in this one. I would welcome the opportunity as I am welcoming it now. Can I equally tell you that the three members sitting in this bench for Rushen actually gave to the southside authorities some alternative dates on which we could attend upon them at their pleasure so that we could put the views and discuss this document? Those dates, apparently, were not suitable so another date was talked about, and apparently that date was accepted as being the date that it went ahead. They were notified, of course, that they were having this meeting and they went ahead and had it but what they forgot to do was to notify us that the meeting was on, so they had a meeting on their own about the rating, because they forgot to tell us that the meeting was on. In that context we were prepared to make ourselves available, personally I was prepared to make myself available.

Can I suggest to hon. members of this Court that the Municipal Association equally I find a little bit difficult, even after the report is out maybe; It was mentioned this morning, Your Excellency, that you were attending the opening at Foxdale on that very evening and I am aware that the Chairman of Executive Council, as the minority report writer, was invited to attend the Municipal Association but the others who were trying to put the other point of view were not even told that the meeting was taking place. We were not invited in any context so it is a bit of "bull" on that one. I do certainly accept and welcome the opportunity for discussion.

The hon. member for Garff, Dr. Mann, did say that if Tynwald decides a policy, then you can discuss it at length with all bodies, so let us go back to exactly what is in the report. Can I please stress to hon. members, do not be frightened but to

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 19F3. T255

consider the report, as it is written quite seriously and calmly, not taking the view that this is the end of local authorities — because if Mr. Gelling moves that amendment he gets no support from me whatsoever — but taking the view that the local authorities will still exist. It is not a new tier of Government being put in; we already have combination authorities, and those combination authorities will be replaced by a different group of combination authorities which will carry out largely the same functions. I can equally suggest to hon. members that over the last 10 years when, as the Chairman of Executive Council said here this morning, all these functions have been taken from the local functioning authorities — they have lost a lot of functions — I would suggest to hon. members that maybe those local authorities have not made any alteration to their administration and possibly they should have made an alteration to their administration if Government is now looking after all those functions, so there is a need and a possibility there of a saving to the ratepayer considering what is going to happen. So just by saying combination authorities as they are set up are going to extend Government is wrong in principle. If you take a parish authority as the very smallest area —and for purposes of explanation I will take my own parish of Arbory of which I was a parish commissioner for long enough — you are going to say to the parish authorities, "You are going to have something if you accept this report; if you reject this report" I would suggest to you that you are going to say to them, " within five years you will disappear," but if you accept this report, to your parish authorities you will say that they have a chance this time round of getting their houses in order, getting the local authorities system in order in the Isle of Man and putting back to the local authorities the chance to deal with the two principles of housing and planning, which are the two which cause the main problem. The others - street dealers, environmental control et cetera — they are duties which they have to do and Central Government has handed over. Those are the two principles that local authorities want to do. From then on a parish authority can still exist in its own entity, and again, my own parish for example, Arbory, is aware now it is operating its village hall; it looks after that, it has to look after the small community hall which is attached to it, it has got a couple of houses to look after, it has got a children's playground area to look after. Now those things will still remain very fundamental to the community. The community might want to raise its own funds, a separate method as has happened in Arbory on the children's play area where it has been partly supported by both. That is good for the community. If you do not accept this report and you do not put something back to the local authorities whereby they can be viable you will lose their support and within five years we will have lost a local authority system. I support the report.

Mr. Gelling: Your Excellency, a point of clarification, if I may. The hon. member who has just spoken accuses me of wishing to see the demise of local government in putting this amendment forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish to see local government preserved and strengthened and I believe this can only be achieved by a proper reorganisation. I do not want to see it die out.

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I will be very brief, but there are one or two points which do bear thinking about and need some reiteration. The mover of

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T256 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

the resolution, Your Excellency, as hon. members have said, gave us a history lesson on what had happened in the past, but the only facts worthy of note to come out of his remarks there were that all the successive attempts to alter the rating system have all been made by town members in this hon. Chamber, and it is a fact that they fizzled out because in the end commonsense prevailed and the House of the day seemed to accept that the minority reports attached to the various reports of committees were worth looking at and listening to and indeed that is the case, I think, today: the minority report is the one that is worth listening to.

The hon. member also — and I think I amongst others heard him on the radio, denegrating the fact that the parishes are so small that the one clerk was able to do three parishes and so on and it was a point of fun with him; he said Ballaugh, Andreas, Jurby and indeed the northern refuse area had the one person handling their affairs, but I would ask, what is wrong with that? Is it such a crime to get and find such a capable person and use him? There is nothing wrong with that, but I think I would suggest that if the letters which came in to the committee carrying this one person's signature had been in favour of some of the proposals perhaps the hon. mover would have said how efficient are those local authorities to use such a person.

Your Excellency, mention has also been made about the inefficiency in local authorities, and indeed the hon. member for South Douglas suggested that the only thing to accrue from accepting the report we have before us would be benefit. He said that it would be very efficient and cost-effective if we adopt the report, but I would suggest that there would be no benefit; in fact it would be the reverse. If anyone in his wildest dreams expects it to be more effective and cost-effective he is looking at the wrong tree altogether. There have been — and I am talking about the smaller local authorities — little or no complaints about what they provide. I would say that if any complaints are heard it is to do with the larger and more cumbersome town authorities. The small local authorities provide a first- class service at little cost and, as hon. members have said, they are dedicated to the cause in their area and if — and they acknowledge this — their area requires a refine- ment of some sort, a project of some sort, they do not jump into it feet-first, they weigh up what the consequences for their ratepayers may or may not be, and that is to be applauded. The hon. member for Ramsey made play of how his particular town had lost all its various functions and he mentioned the highways and so on, but I do know that as far as the highway function went Ramsey could not move it quickly enough. I think we all acknowledge that Government has acknowledged that there are burdens borne by the towns and Government is trying to help by taking over some of the functions, taking over after long and protracted talks in some cases, but the acknowledgment is there and, as one hon. member has quoted, it is an acknowledgment up to the price of a 67 pence rate for Douglas.

Your Excellency, mention has also been made about how in the United Kingdom amalgamations are now being disbanded, and I am quite sure that for us here there is a lesson to be learned there; we should not fly in the face of what is happening elsewhere. It is a fact that big is not beautiful — and I suppose you

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T257 have only got to look at me to say that! (Laughter). If anything, the Government in this Isle of Man should be reversing the process of amalgamation by giving back to these smaller authorities their functioning powers and let the small authorities then impose rates for housing, environment, highways or whatever and pay for the services when they are used and I am quite sure that the local authorities have never had a chance to comment on that aspect.

Your Excellency, I cannot help but feel sorry for the hon. member for West Douglas (Interruption); he went to a meeting of his local town council and he said, "Leave it to me, I will sort it all out for you," but what a burden he took on, hon. members: to have to carry the whole of Douglas and its problems and its inefficiencies and to try and shed the load over the whole Island. It is well known that when the mover of this resolution sets out to achieve a goal he will always say the ends will always justify the means. The end that he is after is eventually an all- Island rate because he knows, as we all know, that Government can never and could never accept the burden of the total abolition of the domestic rate. That is the end; the means are the emasculation, it would seem, of the local authorities and, I feel, their eventual disbandment. It gets harder for the hon. member to achieve the ends; we are now on the fourth report of this particular committee and probably we will have a fifth and a sixth. The terms of reference have had to be changed to try and get somewhere near the ends which he set out to do, and I would say that it has got well away, by way of amendment, from its original remit, and whether that has got anything to !Jo with the fact that the original committee shed two of its rural members I would not like altogether to say, but Your Excellency, I would urge members to vote against the receiving of this particular resolution.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, the people of this Island would be forgiven if they assumed that their Government should be dealing with their affairs in a way that affected their lives and in a priority order. If they had been here last week they would have been forgiven for being mistaken thinking that sheep were at the centre of the universe, and if they were here today they would be listening to us debating abstract formulae about local Government, and if you tell me that they are the priorities facing the Isle of Man today you will forgive me if I have a hollow laugh. You can tell that to the 2,000 people seeking jobs, you can tell that to the house- wife trying to make ends meet, you can tell that to the man in the street who is worried about electric bills and whether his children are going to be educated and in employment.

Your Excellency, having said that, we have before us the Select Committee's Fourth Interim Report and I think we have got to deal with it. We have to deal with it, I believe, in a sensible way and not allow ourselves to be carried away with rhetoric and to believe the two extremes that have been given to us by the opposing sides. Who would dare to be a moderate in a situation like this? Well, I dare to be a moderate, and I will straightaway say that I have not been an elected member of a local authority, so perhaps that does give me a qualification to be a moderate. I hope I am not going to be accused from both sides. The hon. member for Peel was absolutely right when he said this morning that to suggest that all is well with local government in the Isle of Man is a caricature, but at the same time I am not one of

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T258 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

those that will readily admit that all is bad with them. Now again, balancing is a difficult position to be on a wire, but I do not make any apologies for saying that I am for certain reforms when the time is right and after consultation. If this report has one Achilles' heel at all, it is the fact that it has not consulted with the local authorities for whatever reason. I am not reassured when my hon. friends, Mr. Cringle, the hon. member for Rushen, and Dr. Mann, the hon. member for Garff, say that after Tynwald Court has decided the policies we will then consult. If ever there was a lesson to be learned it is in that. Local government six years ago was in turmoil with Central Government because of its will being imposed upon local government, and I though we had spent five years unravelling that situation and that, as enunciated today in this Court, tells me that we are right back to square one because that is not government by consent, that is government by imposition and that must be wrong in the Isle of Man context. Listening to the debate this morning by the mover of the resolution, I thought that he did get rather a lot of "all our yesteryears" — 50 years of it in fact — when really what we are talking about is all our tomorrows, because if we sort this out today it is going to affect our tomorrows, never mind what has gone on in the past, and very little of the hon. mover's speech concentrated on the effects of what is to happen.

Now the report itself is a little bit like the curate's egg — bad in most parts, I would suggest. The last part, on postal ballots — let me briefly deal with that. It is uncalled for, it is unnecessary, it is debateable whether it is desirable, and certainly not essential, so that can be out of the way straightaway, it is not even in the running for support.

Let us deal then with the nub of the situation which is facing us and this is the combination order, the real move to impose combination orders. I am not at all impressed when I am told that because we have combination orders and they have proved successful there is a case made out then for imposing that as the norm. They are successful at this moment in time because they are not imposed but they are there because of the willing co-operation of the authorities. Now this combination order, Your Excellency, is a little bit like a doctor prescribing an aspirin for a headache. Local authorities have gone in for these combination authorities because they have had a headache; mainly it has been swimming pools and sheltered housing. They have not been able to deal with it themselves individually but collectively they have dealt with it and dealt with it successfully, so I take it that for the headache they have taken an aspirin. This report says that, well, it was successful; in effect you are going to get 100 aspirins and it will do you mighty good to deal with all your problems, planning and housing. Now I would suggest - and I do not need a medical man to tell me — that 100 aspirins taken at once will cure your headache, but it will not do very much for the rest of your body. You will be dead, and I have got a feeling that his report is heading along that direction. It is meaning well but it is going to do a lot of damage, and that is why I make no apologies for putting forward to this Court my amendment:

That the Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee on the Rating of Domestic Property be referred back to enable the committee to have consultations with all local authorities prior to reporting further.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T259

I do so, Your Excellency, for one very good reason. I am quite sure the hon. member for West Douglas will be doing his arithmetic; praise has been heaped on him as a politician, he will have been doing his counting as this debate goes on and I would suggest that arithmetic will show that he is losing the debate. If that is the case, what happens if this report is rejected? This committee goes on sitting and it will have to reconsider. What I am saying to them in practical political terms is, take the advice that I am offering you and go and talk with the people who it concerns. It may very well be that you may have a preconceived idea of what their ideas will be and the evidence is abounding to that end. That still does not remove from you, the responsibility of consulting these people before the decisions are taken, and if nothing else I think this Court should be seen to be listening before taking a step which, I believe at the end of the day, could very well injure the sound government of the Isle of Man, and this Court is all about the sound government of the Isle of Man.

Mr. Quirk: I beg to second, Your Excellency. I have listened very carefully to the debate, I do think there is room here at this present time for further consultation, and I do not think we should exactly wipe out the idea of amalgamation somewhere along the line. I am sure there are many parishes in the Isle of Man today that probably would accept a situation of amalgamation providing this is voluntarily carried out, and that is the big point that I want to make at this present time: it must be a voluntary decision on behalf of all the associations at the moment. I do not want to say too much about this, Your Excellency; this will be tested on the floor of the House, but I just want to say that at this present time that the debate has varied all over the place, and the main idea that has come through here today has been the abolition of the domestic rate.

I would only make one comment on that, sir, and that is that there has not been anybody in this hon. Court who feels that there should be an extraction or extortion from some of these people who cannot afford it of the higher rate charges. I feel that we would all support that idea, but let us not forget too that there are other people in this Isle of Man and you cannot expect people to pay an equalised rate for services which they are not getting. I want that thought to be pretty clear in everybody's mind as well: equalisation is not the be-all and end-all of everything.

Just as far as this report goes, I just want to comment on the system that is noted here in this particular report and there is says "The inadequacy of rating area, the ability to provide and pay for the services they require" — these are exercises which the Local Government Board and the local authorities do at this present time. They serve the people, they provide the services to which they are entitled and which they pay for, and in the finish it says in this little paragraph "Consequently they are unable to engage and pay for competent staff, officers, equipment et cetera". Now this leads me to believe — it is almost spelling it out — that there is going to be a lot of money spent here, a lot of money that we cannot afford at the present time in order to centralise local government authorities in the Isle of Man. I will say no more, sir. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Council.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T260 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, several years ago I promised the hon. member who was then the member for Glenfaba, Mr. Anderson, and who is now in the upper House that whenever I agreed with him I would tell him so. I will tell him this afternoon, I agreed with his opening remarks this morning: members have already made up their minds as to how they are going to vote, and Your Excellency might be wondering why we should not have voted first and debated afterwards, because no-one is going to change their mind in this place.

The answer to this question, Your Excellency, was found for me last week when we were discussing another subject, the matter of burials, and it came out in the debate put forward by the person representing Arbory church that even they in the churchyard have a system: if you live inside Arbory you pay £10 for a hole in the ground, if you live outside you pay £20 — no equality at all. It has been carried over right through to when you are dead, literally, and this Court is no different whatsoever from the attitude taken by that local parish — every man to his own. The vote taken here today does not reflect any fairness of government, any representation of the people; it reflects nothing but the back of the parish pump. It reflects the idea that you will give lip service to an idea that was put forward, the abolition or equalisation of rates, and you can talk for ever and a day about it, as was spelt out by the past Chairman of the Finance Board who put forward this suggestion that they had looked and worked on it, but any person who looks at the rates bill of the Isle of Man will see that, although they put Government money out, there is no meeting together of those who pay nothing and those who pay everything. It was lip service; it always has been.

It was mentioned this morning, sir, in what I thought was a very poor comment, when the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Payne, thought he would take a ride on the backs of the ratepayers of Douglas quoting on a piece of paper to the Court - which we all knew about — the money supplied by Central Government as rate relief for Douglas. In very poor taste, Your Excellency, because what he was saying was literally, "Look at us, we have put our thumb in the pie, we have pulled out a plum and we have said 'What a good boy am I!' Very poor in debate, Your Excellency, that. I was not going to ask him how it went on; I should have done but I thought he would not have the rest of it with him because he is not interested in the rest of it. He was only interested in the bits that he wanted to quote. If he had looked at the whole of the rate demand he would have seen the money that has been put into this Government. The marvellous idea that was projected about Onchan Commissioners being so efficient would be an illusion which would be snapped immediately. Onchan Commissioners' total rate income is less than a third of Douglas', and funnily enough they have nearly a third of the number of people living in Douglas, but look at the rate demand and you see the services that Douglas supply for the benefit of the rest of the Island. This is old ground, I know, but it is true nevertheless. We spend nearly as much on refuse collection and on the public conveniences as the total rate of Onchan Commissioners. To work in comparisons of efficiency and inefficiency is nonsense. When you are dealing with a community which is geared to five industries which are laid down even from the Finance Board — although I believe that the industry I happen to believe in has been put on the wrong level, fifth down the list — tourism — they have to be serviced and the people

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T261 of Douglas are servicing them and they have complained and complained from this Court but it will never change. It will never ever change until the hon. member behind me — who I disagree with on many occasions but I admire his ability to dig his teeth in and keep going, and I cannot say that for an awful lot of the members of this Court — until he changes the representation of the people and the turnips no longer have a vote and the cows no longer have a vote and the sheep no longer have a vote but people do, you will get down then when this would not take ten minutes to resolve, because it would be resolved by the representatives of the people, and that is the whole basis and the crux of this matter today, sir. In this Court the ball is held by the bigger team but they are not the best team, they are the bigger team, because the cookie is crumbled in such a way that the team has the ball and they happen to represent unfortunately between them the minority of the people but the majority of the cows and the sheep and the turnips and, as it happens today, he also represents the conglomerate of small local authorities. Quoted this morning was "When Orry the Dane in Mannin did reign" - that is the end of that particular sentence, by the way. When he was in charge he would have resolved this problem with one blow of his battleaxe; he would have cut out the waste and the nonsense and said, "Listen, lads, get on with it" because he had a system that worked very well. He had an overlord system when he put a man in each area and he was the boss, and there was only one person he reported back to, and that was Orry himself. But unfortunately .. .

Mr. Brown: That was democracy, though!

Mr. Delaney: We have not got democracy here, I hear. Democracy? You do not know the meaning of the word, otherwise you would have been voting with the hon. member's resolution! But the situation, Your Excellency, has come down to once again where this Court is divided, and it is not divided by the good or the bad or the indifferent. It is divided by the parish pump, and the parish pump has got to be removed.

I will get back to the hon. chairman, who was jokingly referred to at the last sitting as the "Chief Minister"; he quoted this morning a situation where he was talking about what they have done in equalisation of rates, and I remember asking him at a public meeting — and I will quote this because it was referred to that the people of Douglas have no sort of community spirit — the Douglas Ratepayers' meeting in 1975 — do you remember that meeting? I asked him, did he think it was fair, as he had at that time 1400 voters, that there should be two members, when North Douglas had 2500 voters and they had one member? I remember his answer: "You tell me whether it is unfair," and if you cannot see it then and you certainly cannot see it now, you will never be able to support anything that is in this type of resolution or in this particular committee's report. Anybody, any 12- year-old school kid, could see there is something wrong, but he cannot and he does not want to see it, and neither do other members. That is fair enough, it will be outvoted. The hon. member of Council talked about the voting; it is quite true, this will be lost unfortunately, I believe, by the Upper House because of Standing Orders and the way they work. It might come back and I believe it will still be lost on numbers on a count, but at the end of the day the hon. member for West

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T262 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

Douglas will win, and he will win because he is right, and at the end of the day that is what matters. Unfortunately the situation is that the people of Douglas and the people of Ramsey and the people of Castletown — and I am surprised at the hon. member — will carry on paying more than their rightful share for services which benefit the rest of the community. I am sorry my colleagues at the last sitting of this Court did not vote against the £250,000 for the cows at hoof, and the reason for this is that they were told categorically that there was nearly £1/2 million extra coming forward at some future date before the end of the financial year. If that £1/2 million was shared out amongst the four major towns in this Island equalisation of the rates would practically be achieved, and I challenge my colleagues: instead of being played off as we have been played off over the years about "We will play ball with you, we will give you a bit, you give us a bit," when we come to the real cake we will never get a share, and I ask my colleagues to remember this when the resolution comes forward, and to make it known that we will not vote to give cows more than they will give people — because that is what this is about. I ask my colleagues to do that, to stop playing ball because you are never going to get your share of the ball, they are going to hang on to it as long as they have the system they have got now, and I make no apologies, sir, and I have not broken Standing Orders, except once today when I challenged the member for Middle who made a big thing about being a member of the commissioners. I was a member of the Council; I should have quoted the Standing Order number, sir, and for that I apologise, although you did support me in my particular move. As far as I am concerned, the rules are wrong of this Court, they are wrong because they allow cows and sheep to have more representation than people, and that is the issue that is going to be voted on today.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, on a point order, please, I do not like that accusation by the hon. member for East Douglas. He did not read the rule correctly, sir. I would ask him to read Rule 102; he should have stopped me at the time I said the word, sir, not at the end of my debate, and I will correct him on that and put him in his place.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I pointed out to you before the hon. member - obviously he was too busy, but I did not want to stop such a wonderful rate of speech and I apologise, sir. I did, but I was right at the end of the day and it is being right, as I say, that matters.

The Governor: I am sure that members know what we are talking about. It is Standing Order 102. I think we will get on with the debate, and if anybody is in any doubt about procedure, read the Standing Orders. The hon. member for Glenfaba, please, to speak to the debate, and not read the Standing Orders! (Laughter).

Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I will start by what the hon. member for East Douglas has said, and he does seem to make it quite clear what many of us have believed: that the whole debate is regarding the question of how much rates people in Douglas should pay compared to anywhere else. The whole tenor of what he has said can only lead to that conclusion, and indeed it is supported by what other

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T263

members have said but not quite so openly. Therefore I think one should deal with this matter equally openly.

It is to me quite extraordinary proposition that people living far from a place should pay rates to pay for the amenities of people in that place, if it is Douglas or anywhere else. You might as well suggest that the people in the West of Douglas or the Midlands should have their rates equalised to pay for the rates in London because some of them go to London. It really is not a concept that is accepted anywhere in the world, to my knowledge. In most countries of the world local taxes or rates are based upon the expenses of the authority levying them and which needs the income to provide facilities. Now if you come to Douglas, the people of Douglas have lights, pavements, they are near to shops. They have these things all the time, 365 days of the year, it is absurd to say that people from Cronk- y-Voddy or Dalby or the north of the Island should contribute to these because they happen to go to Douglas once a week or once a month. I have never heard such an extraordinary argument. Furthermore it must be remembered that people who go to Douglas from afar have to pay the cost of transport for such facilities as they use theree.

Now the next thing is, we all accept that for the reasons the hon. member of Council has put forward there are unfairnesses in rates between one occupier of property and another in the same rating area, and this is caused because rates are based on the building and not the ability of the occupier or occupiers of the building to pay them. There are ways round this that do not call for the whole alteration of local government. One of the simplest is obviously a local income tax. I think this has been rejected across the water and in other places because of the size of the problem, but I do not think that in this Island size is any bar to it. With Government computers now doing more income tax work, it seems to me perfectly possible, once an assessment is reached, for the computer to add on a small additional allowance which would be relevant to a local area's rate in the form of a local income tax, and I do think we should be much more productive if we were to look at that, rather than to suggest the complete change of local government to do something when there is no necessity to alter local government.

The hon. member for Council, Mr. Lowey, has suggested that we should refer this back. He said in particular that he is sorry about the time we have all spent on this; other members have mentioned the same point, that we have spent most of the day on this when there are more pressing matters such as unemployment and the economy, but it is for that very reason that I hope that we will not refer it back, but defeat the proposal once and for all, because if we refer it back I am worried that we will just have a similar proposal coming before us again and we will spend an equal amount of time, if not longer, debating it all once again. Therefore, I hope we will reject his amendment, reject the amendment of the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Gelling, which shows what is really intended in the long run. The hon. member for Peel asked what the intention was in the long run. It is clearly to do away with all the present commissioners, all the small authorities and just have four big ones, so I hope that will be equally defeated, as I hope, finally, we will defeat all these proposals in the Order Paper, that this will be the

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T264 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

last we will hear of this matter and that instead, at some future date, we may get a local income tax or something similar which would deal with the real anomalies in rating between people in the same area.

The President of the Council: Speaking on the amendment, Your Excellency, first of all the amendment as proposed by hon. friend, Mr. Lowey, I concur with what the hon. member for Glenfaba says: if we are to support this amendment we do say there is certain merit in the report, but we do not go all the way with it, and perhaps you will take it back and rehash it in some way. I believe that the protagonists for this principle who follow Mr. Kneale are somewhat divided. Let us, who are against them, leave them divided. I hope that some will vote for Mr. Gelling's proposal. I will not, of course. I hope some will, and if they vote for the amendment then they may not vote for the proposal and Mr. Kneale's forces will be so divided and they will be fighting on so many fronts that they will lose the battle.

I do say, as for Mr. Gelling's report, let us make no mistake about it, nobody in this Court should have any illusions about that. It clearly says, and we admire him for being so forthright, "The abolition of all existing local authorities." He says that without any doubt about that "And the establishment of four new authorities" given more power, he does say. That should be rejected out of hand by all of us who believe in the principle of local authorities and believe that the local authorities in the Isle of Man are doing quite a good job within the limits of what they have to do. If a certain local authority is going to buy themselves very expensive swimming pools which they find are badly constructed and so forth, should the rest of the Island have to suffer always? If they have a music hall given to them by the Henry Bloom Noble Trust, which is a great asset to the town, should the rest of the community have to find a £150,000 deficit which they find, by bad management, that they endorsed? No. I think as far as Mr. Gelling is concerned, we must, without any shadow of a doubt, be opposed to that. Mr. Lowey's is the more dangerous — if I might say to my hon. friend — because it does intimate that there is perhaps some merit in it. I notice some members who had previously said they were going to vote against the report did assent to the fact that they might refer this matter back to the local authorities, hoping that they might find some message there. The only message they would get from the local authorities would be the message that has been spelt out clearly today: we do not want any of it. We want you to look at the problem, as the hon. member for Glen- faba said again, of how to relieve the person who is paying a high local rate as com- parted with her neighbour living in the same property, very wealthy people, paying the same rates — that is the point they have to look at. We want to spell it out loud and clear to this committee, forget this question of interfering with the local authorities at all. I think we should take the hon. member for Glenfaba's advice and vote against both amendments and vote against the proposal that is before us.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I would like to speak to the amendment. I think it is very important that we understand how both of these amendments are likely to change the original concept. The original concept was that the existing

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T265

authorities will not alter in any way any of their functions and nothing is being taken away, in spite of what is being said here all day long. What is being added to is the ability to join together to assume more functions (Hear, hear), and all day long it has been stressed that something is being taken away. Nothing is being taken away, and both of these amendments will mean the total destruction, almost certainly, of the existing authorities. There is considerable difference between the original resolution and the amendments and I hope everybody realises exactly how different that is.

There is one other point, and that is that if, from the financial point of view, everything is thrown out as has been asked, we will be left with a policy of supporting Douglas and reducing the Douglas rate as quickly as possible, because there is no other policy that is immediately open to us to fulfil the obligations laid upon this Court by resolutions that this Court has already agreed to.

The Acting-Speaker (Mr. Ward): Your Excellency, in case hon. members think that the very temporary glorified upright sitting in this seat has rendered me speech- less, I do find that, having listened patiently to a great deal of what has been said today, it does impress me to some degree, and I find it sad that whenever there is a debate of this sort there is always the country versus the town. No-one else at the beginning of this debate even introduced the Douglas/Onchan issue and I am not going to enlarge on it. Suffice to say that this dear old soul that the hon. President of the Council is often talking about has died and several more have either died of hypothermia or starvation since we have been prevaricating in this House as to what we can do to help her.

The other thing that I would like to say too — hopefully my last words on the Douglas/Onchan issue because the more they do it the more, perhaps, I rise to the bait — is that I do not think that even the members for Middle or certainly the President of Council should get carried away for one moment with their inordinate pride or conceit of belonging to Onchan to think that Onchan has got the prerogative in human values, in community spirit, in initiative. I could quote them — and the member from the Council, Mr. Moore, said what happens in Willaston. There is, in the town of Douglas and within the estates, a very human and very caring community spirit operating in most areas, both in Anagh Coar, Spring Valley, Pulrose and Willaston and wherever you like to say. For instance, in a little area like Hillside Avenue there is a very caring neighbours' co-operative who look very carefully and well after people who live alone, people who are in the poverty trap and certainly people who are widows and that sort of thing. Having said that, I would like to clear that situation up: please God, whatever our debates in the future, try to just keep on a level keel and do not think for one moment that either in Onchan or any other country district you carry the prerogative in human kindness or in initiative.

Having said that, we get down to the debate, and the one thing I have got to thank the President of Council for was something that I was waiting for in the debate from this side of the House.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T266 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

He did make a remark that the initial reason for setting up this Select Committee — certainly and we admit, it, quite frankly — was to do with some form of equalisation or abolition of the rating system as we know it. He drew comparisons of people on one side of the road, and we get back to this poor old widow having to pay the enormous rates for the people who have two cars and so many in the family earning £200 per week — you will have to tell us who they are, some time. I looked on this side of the House for a little spark of reply to what he said, because what he was saying in effect was that, although this exercise today might have been a testing of the water and would let us see how the thing is going, was there any glimmer of hope among you on this side of the House as to what would be the real intention if there was some formula to do something about the equalisation of rates? - Would there be a glimmer of hope or humanity in any of the faces that are so combined against it?

This brings me to my last point, Your Excellency. I never fail to be amazed by the hypocrisy which is exercised in this House in many debates of this kind. Let us be honest; you are not so worried about what may happen to the local authorities — although I can share to some degree your concern, I have been a member of a local authority, and in case anybody worries about Douglas Town Council, I was proud to be a member of Douglas Town Council; I am a Douglas boy, I have said that before and I will always be proud of the town that I live in. The basic fear that you people have is that there might turn out to be some way or, as has been said, the member for West Douglas — and I praise him for the tenancity with which he sticks to these things — and his committee may find a formula which will bring something to this House that you cannot get out of, and the fear at the bottom of your mind is that some time at some place there may be some scheme for the equalisation of rates all over the Isle of Man which can relieve the people who are in dire need and in the poverty trap and who find paying their rates difficult. In my opinion, in a debate of this sort — and my apologies to the people who are genuine in their contributions as far as the local authorities are concerned — you will forgive me if I accept a great deal of what some of you say as "Pie in the sky", because at the bottom of it all you are afraid that some day that Onchan might just have to pay a little bit more, and that applies to most of us, and if the people living in towns like Castletown, Ramsey and Peel cannot support us on this issue, I do not know, quite frankly, were we are going. (Hear, hear).

The Governor: The chairman to reply.

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, in May this year we had a debate on electricity. The hon. member of Council, Mr. Percy Radcliffe, in opening that debate had this to say, "The question of amalgamating the Douglas Corporation Electricity Depart- ment and the Isle of Man Electricity Board has been the subject of debate for a considerable number of years. Over those years Tynwald has received a number of authoritative reports which have all recommended the formation of one all-Island Electricity Authority for technical and planning reasons. Notwithstanding these strong recommendations, amalgamation has never been the same undertaking in opposition throughout, but rather the opposition has come from whichever undertaking has had the lowest tariff level at that particular time." He concluded his

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T267

opening remarks thus:— "Now is the time to put amalgamation through. It has been under consideration and believed desirable since 1946, but has been put off time after time. The commonsense way ahead for the Isle of Man is clear: one efficient undertaking supplying the whole of the Island."

Those words could apply equally to the problem of local Government. We have been discussing today that Tynwald has been appointing committees and commissioners to look into this question time after time over the past 50 years, and each time Tynwald has failed to make a decision, only receiving the reports. On each occasion the commissions have taken evidence, the great majority of local authorities and espcially the parish commissioners have come out strongly in opposition to any change. True to form the majority of local authorities have come out strongly against the recommendations contained in the Rating Committee's Fourth Interim Report, and about 12 of them have indicated support in various degress of enthusiasm for the minority report submitted by the hon. member of Council, Mr. Radcliffe, and some members of this hon. Court today have also indicated their support for that minority report.

I wonder if they really knew what they were supporting, for I have read this minority report over and over again, and I am still wondering what he is trying to say. Regarding the proposal to establish four combination authorities which is supported by five members of the committee, he asks in paragraph 2 of his minority report "Is it for the improvement of good government of the Island, or is it a means to find a system of spreading the cost of public amenities more equitably throughout the Island?" He does not answer that question but reminds us in paragraph 3 that in July 1980 Tynwald voted in favour of the Select Committee negotiating with the Finance Board for the total abolition of domestic rates, and then he goes on to tell us that in his view that was a bad mistake. If you look at paragraph 10 of his report he recommends that the committee should concentrate on its original remit. Is he telling us now that he has had a change of heart and is prepared to support the total abolition of the domestic rate? — that is the remit of the Rating Committee. No; having told us what the remit was in paragraph 3, by paragraph 10 he has forgotten, and interprets it as being to consider the fair distribution of expenditure arising from the provisions of amenities available to all. Is he advocating equalisation of rates with allowances for amenity? The hon. member for Middle, Mr. Catlin, took up this point and said he supported the minority report, especially paragraph 10. I would remind the hon. Court that Mr. Catlin was a member of the original Rating Committee and, far from supporting the original remit of the committee, he was totally opposed to the abolition of the domestic rate. In fact, at that time, the Rating Committee was so divided down the middle that in the end I had to draw them aside, and I would remind people of who were on that committee: the hon. member for Council, Mr. Percy Radcliffe, the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Norman Radcliffe, the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Catlin and the other members, the hon. Mr. Moore, myself and Mr. Walker. We had to come to this Court and move a resolution on the abolition, and although that was carried with tremendous support, 17 votes, three members of the Rating Committee opposed it; need I tell you any more?

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T268 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

Paragraph 4 of his report also indicates confusion. He reels off all the functions that Central Government has accepted financial responsibility for. These will, therefore, not be the responsibility of the local authorities or the proposed combination authorities, but there are plenty of other duties left for them to do, and these are included in Appendices 2, 3 and 4 of the main report. I think I should make it clear at this stage that the hon. member of Council, Mr. Radcliffe, took a full part in the discussions on the setting up of combination authorities within the committee. He supported the Third Interim Report which asked for an extension of our terms of reference so that we could examine the local government set-up. As long ago as April 1982 the committee discussed the proposition that there should be four regional authorities exercising the principal local authority functions, leaving the existing parish authorities to take the responsibility for village halls and other similar matters. It was Mr. Radcliffe who actually suggested their retention in this way, and it was because of his views that the committee concentrated on this aspect when preparing our report.

The Chairman of the Local Government Board was brought into our discussions on 3rd June 1982. It has been mentioned today that no consultation has taken place with the Local Government Board. It was at the Local Government Board's request that we invited their chairman to take part in our discussions and he was invited to every meeting after that approach, and on 3rd June 1982 the minutes record that "the Select Committee's ideas for a return of local government were outlined to Mr. Walker, and general discussion ensued. The importance of arriving at, and recommending, a scheme which would be generally acceptable was stressed." To be quite frank, I would have personally concentrated on setting up the four combination authorities and abolishing all existing local authorities, but I want along with the scheme to get unanimity, and I am still going to stick to that view and I am not supporting the amendment as being moved. The fact that the committee made this decision and compromised in this way, I feel honour-bound to support them in their move today.

Further meetings of the committee were held in August and October 1982, and at the latter meeting the details of the proposed reorganisation of local authorities were further discussed. The minute records that:— The establishment of four functioning authorities for the Island leaving the other authorities as non-functioning bodies was suggested. As an interim move, four combination authorities with membership based on population of the district represented might be established. This could be done under existing legislation, discussion ensued." The possibility of the combination authorities was accepted, and that was at a full meeting of the committee. The proposal could be aired in the committee's next report with the object of finding the general reaction, and that is what we are doing today. Further meetings of the committee took place on 28th March and 21st April 1983, when further discussions took place on the proposals, and on 25th May a draft report was ready and was considered and amended. At all these meetings the hon. member, Mr. Radcliffe, was present and took an active part in the preparation of the report. A further meeting of the committee was held on 3rd June 1983 to consider, and if possible, sign the report. Mr. Radcliffe was missing from that meeting, but to the surprise of the rest of us he sent along a Memorandum of

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T271

four members. Nothing could be clearer: they were in favour of centralised local government. Is the hon. member, Mr. Radcliffe still in favour of centralisation of local government? If so, why did he not tell the committee, and why did he not support the recent effort to extend the Douglas town boundaries as he recommended in 1967?

In paragraph 6 of his minority report he is worred about the committee's suggestion that the Local Government Board should have the right to intervene in planning matters. Why should he be so concerned? The Local Government Board already has the right — in fact it is their duty — to intervene in any matter of local government if a local authority is not carrying its responsibilities in a proper manner. This paragraph also contains an inaccuracy when it says that Central Government is already responsible for electricity supplies; this is not true in the eastern area of the Island. The Douglas Corporation still supplies this area and the Douglas people are only too well aware what happened when Central Government stole their water supply (Hear, hear): the rates rocketed up. That is why, although supporting amalgamation of electricity, they want the terms to be right.

In paragraph 7 Mr. Radcliffe makes comparisons between our suggestions for reorganisation with the reorganisation which took place in the United Kingdom some years ago and which the present United Kingdom Government is intending to change in certain areas such as the Greater London Council. Certain members have made reference to this in the Court today, amongst them the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Maddrell, but this is where we are starting to get absolutely ridiculous. There are over seven million people in the Greater London Council area which covers 610 sq. miles, and that is the kind of area they are comparing with our half-penny package such as the 445 persons in the parish of Michael and the 532 in the village, a total of 977, and yet at present they are separate local authorities.

In paragraph 8 the hon. member holds out wonderful hopes for us all! When the new ministerial system of government is established everything will be all right,

In paragraph 8 the hon. member holds out wonderful hopes for us all! When the new ministerial system of government is established everything will be all right for the ratepayers of the Island because each of the 33 members of Tynwald would only serve on one ministry. I am afraid I cannot follow with this reasoning, especially when I remember that the members of the Finance Board served only on one board, and I recollect how hard we had to fight for every penny of rate support when the hon. member was chairman of that body. Plenty of expressions of sympathy in the same manner as those expressed by the walrus to the oysters before he gobbled them up, but very little hard cash!

Paragraph 9 returns to the confusion of the numbers game, and it would appear that Mr. Radcliffe believes that 33 members of Tynwald are too many and that the total of local authority members is going to increase if the main report is accepted. Of course this is not true; the numbers will be reduced, and as for his fears of the escalating rates of pay of all members of Tynwald and local authorities

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T272 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. rocketing sky high, I leave hon. members to puzzle that out for themselves. Is he advocating the abolition of all local authorities? It would certainly appear so to me. Of course, we must remember that the hon. member is opposed to the efforts to abolish the domestic rate. He had his tongue in his cheek when he recommends that the committee should concentrate on its original remit. We know people always oppose; in fact, I wonder why he stays on the committee when he does not believe in its terms of reference. (Interruption). I further wonder what the 12 or so local authorities who have expressed support for the minority report really thought he meant. I would advise them to read Alice Through the Looking Glass, where the walrus and the carpenter took the young oysters for a pleasant walk along the beach from which the oysters failed to return.

Mr. Delaney: Shell-shock!

Mr. Kneale: I have given it to you before but you can have it again: "Oh oyster," said the carpenter, "you have had a pleasant run. Shall we be trotting home again? But answer came there none. And this was scarcely odd because they had eaten every one." Now that could happen to the local authorities if they are not careful and follow the minority report.

Dealing with the local authorities, some have expressed concern that the committee have not consulted them about the proposals. On 18th August 1983, as the hon. member for Rushen has pointed out, the Municipal Association held a meeting in the south of the Island to which they invited Mr. Percy Radcliffe to come along and talk about his minority report. They did not ask me or any other members of the committee to go along and explain the main report and even Mr. Percy Radcliffe — I give him all due credit — was surprised at that and expressed that opinion to me. On the other hand, we have had some local authorities complaining that other committees, namely the Local Government Board and the Boards' Responsibility Committee, had already been in touch with them. For example, we had hardly got our Third Interim Report accepted by this Court - and that was on 17th March 1982 — when we received a letter from the Michael Parish Commissioners, the usual three or four pages dated 2nd April 1982 and it was complaining that here was another committee being set up to ask them the same questions they had already given to another committee. That was the kind of response there. I could give you endless evidence that local authorities had themselves suggested degrees of amalgamation to previous committees and commissions and these included Port Erin, Port St. Mary, Malew, Kirk Michael Village and Parish, Patrick and German, Douglas, Laxey et cetera.

I understand that a member of Michael Village Commissioners in a recent interview on Manx Radio suggested that I had not done my homework on this issue. To show just how well I have done my homework as regards our recommendation that Michael Parish and Village should amalgamate and become the ancient parish of Michael again I will quote from the evidence that each of them gave to the 1963 commission. The village commissioners wrote: "The commissioners would consider fusion of this village and this parish into one district, but the parish commissioners would probably disagree because of the lower rate. There are 23 bungalows in

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. YNVVALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T269

Dissent. Referring again to his minority report in paragraph 5 in which he again indicates confusion when he states he cannot see any good reason for establishing more authorities, which undoubtedly will grow and extend the existing duplication of services and staffing between local and national government.

In the first place our report is suggesting a reduction in the number of authorities by amalgamating four local authorities into two and abolishing eight existing combination authorities and replacing them with four. That, by my simple calculations, gives an overall reduction of six, and in the second place Mr. Radcliffe, having pointed out that there is existing duplication of services and staffing between local and national government, would appear to be advocating complete centralisation to do away with this.

I would remind the hon. Court that in 1966 the Local Government Board carried out an enquiry into the responsibilities, functions and duties of the Isle of Man local government and the relationship and distribution of duties between the board and the local government districts. Four members of the board, Messrs. Cecil McFee, Tom Faragher, Roy MacDonald and George Gale, supported a proposal that the Isle of Man be divided into five administrative areas for the purpose of local government. Of course there had to be a minority report by Mr. Percy Radcliffe, and this was dated 16th November 1966 in which he wrote - "To set up five administrative authorities, each with suitable administrative and technical staff in each district in a community of 50,000 people appears to me to be wrong in principle. As Tynwald has already centralised Fire Services and is contemplating the amalgamation of Water and Electricity Services, it is my opinion that the introduction of five divisions for the purpose of local government would only delay instead of advance progress and cost much more than at present." What was he advocating then? It seems to me complete centralisation again.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Come off it!

Mr. Kneale: That report was submitted to the commission... Mr. P. Radcliffe: What have we done since? . Mr. Kneale: You will find out what you have done since, there is a lot more to talk about (Laughter).

That report was submitted to the Commission on Rating and Taxation, which at that time was taking evidence, and a few days afterwards there was a General Election for the House of Keys and a new Local Government Board came into being, only one member of the previous board remaining. Percy Radcliffe became chairman; the other members were Peter Spittall, Geoff Crellin, Ian Anderson and Spencer Kelly. They appeared before the commission to give evidence on 19th January, 1967, and an account of that meeting appears in an Appendix C of the commission's report.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T270 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

The hon. member for Middle, Mr. Maddrell, at the beginning was wanting to know why we had not made reference to that report in our report. Well, it was quite clear; if he reads the report he will find that it has nothing at all to do with the reorganisation of local authorities. It was a definite financial remit they had dealing with rates and taxation. The fact that they got on to reorganisation of local authorities was just something that happened on the way. But it is worth reading part of that report. It says "Mr. Radcliffe stated that the new board were in favour of the minority report" — that was his report — "He viewed the majority report as being a step back into the past, and he did not object to the board being obliged to take over more and more local authority functions. Lieutenant-Colonel Spittall said that the board felt that the present system worked in practice. The board realised that some reform would eventually be necessary, but they did not think that five regions was the answer. For this reason they supported fhe minority report. Major Crellin stated that he was completely new to the job, but on first sight he felt that a single rural district council might be the answer. Other members appeared to support this view — remember there are only five of them — "stating, however, that it would be political suicide to say so in public" and, having said that, told the commission; the commission published these remarks for them and made them public. So this is all good stuff, and it shows that the other members, when supporting the minority report of Mr. Radcliffe's, believed they were supporting complete amalgamation of local authorities into one single rural district council.

To substantiate this, a letter dated 6th February, 1967, was sent from them to the commission which stated that there were of the opinion that the present set- up, whereby 26 local authorities exist in the Island, cannot be considered effective. They were concerned that in the case of the town of Douglas a double payment was extracted as rates paid for the staff engaged by the Corporation, which is adequate to carry out local government duties for its districts, and the ratepayers have to contribute by way of tax to the salaries paid to the board's Public Health Inspectors, who in turn have to act for the local authorities, including such districts as the towns of Ramsey and Castletown, the Onchan, Port Erin, Port St. Mary and Laxey village districts and all the parishes, without charge to the rates of those districts. I would point out to you — and take note very carefully — there was not a single Douglas member on the board at that time who made that observation.

After commenting on the various recommendations made by the previous board, the report goes on to say, "The board are of the opinion that the centralising of administration is the ideal to be aimed at," and they conclude their letter with these words, "Whilst the board is somewhat concerned with the political compli- cations which may arise, they feel, from a commonsense and a practical point of view, the natural method of administration of the local government in the Isle of Man must be at centralised government level except for the reservation that the Douglas Corporation should continue to function as at present with perhaps some extension of its boundaries." This view is supported by the comparison of Douglas with the whole of the rest of the Island in population, rateable value, place in the Tourist Industry and adequacy of professional, technical and administrative staff. That was a unanimous report in the name of the chairman, Mr. Radcliffe, and his

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T273

Cannan Avenue, six bungalows in Cooil Avenue, five bungalows in Shore Road and in a continuation of Station Road three bungalows and one house. All are in the parish except five bungalows on Shore Road. All these might well be within the village district but for strong objection probably from parish commissioners and commissioners were, simply wrote: "We are not in favour of any change except amalgamation with Michael Village". If we look at the present situation in Michael, the total population of the village at the 1981 Census was 532, and in the parish 445, a total of 977 people. At the 1981 General Election there were 344 voters in the village and 320 in the parish, a total of 664 and yet they are two separate local authorities. But it gets worse; they both have the same Clerk, a Mr. J. Grimson, who writes long letters on behalf of each body saying virtually the same 'thing. The village and parish share the same offices, which are in the village area: On 18th April this year they carried out an election to elect two members to the village commissioners; there was a 34 per cent. turnout which means about 120 people bothered to vote. On the following day, 19th April, he carried out another election to elect five members to the parish commissioners and, as I previously pointed out, a large built-up area of the parish is surrounded by the village. Obviously the parish is more politically minded than the village as they had a 47 per cent. turnout, which means about 150 persons voted. So for the total of about 270 persons living in the same area they had to have two days of elections. How ridiculous can you get? It should have been an easy a matter to deal with both on the same day or, better still, if they were amalgamated as they desired in 1963, one election would have done. I have not finished with Michael yet; each levy a rate, the village 25 pence in the pound and the parish 17 pence in the pound. The product of a penny rate is £303 in the village and £214 in the parish, which means the village raises £7,575 from this source and the parish £3,638. It is worth looking at how they spend their money, and hon. members will find this in Appendix 3 of our report, which shows the next expenditure of all local authorities; Michael Village spends £2,610 or 34 per cent. on administration, and £3,157 or 41.2 per cent. on refuse collection. These two items account for 75.2 per cent. of their total expenditure, and if you add to this £1,400 for street lighting that account for 93.5 per cent. of their total net expenditure. Michael Parish spends £1,173 or 24 per cent, on administration and £2,642 or 54.3 per cent. on refuse collections. These two items account for 78.4 per cent. of the total net expenditure. It should be obvious to anyone that this is a nonsense. If the two local authorities were amalgamated there must be an immediate saving to each on administration. Their clerk would only need to write one long letter instead of two, they would hold one election instead of two. Surely we do not require two local authorities to look after refuse collection and street lighting. Whatever hon. members think of the rest of our report you must admit this situation should not be allowed to continue. No-one can claim that the people from Cannan Avenue in the parish are any different than those in Station Road in the village. They are about 50 feet apart ...

Mr. Delaney: 25 pence against 17 pence rates.

Mr. Kneale: You are not destroying any ancient parish boundary, you are simply reuniting the parish again to the position it was in 1905 before the village was

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T274 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

expelled for having enteric fever (Laughter). I appreciate that the hon. member for Michael had to try and defend this Gilbert and Sullivan situation, but he is too practical a man to really believe in what he was saying; I am sure his tongue was well and truly in his cheek.

I think that the report contained in the Rating and Taxation Commissioners Report of 1967 of an interview the commission had with representatives of Port Erin Commissioners is very enlightening. They told the commission that the majority of the commissioners agreed with amalgamation in principle but would prefer such amalgamation to be at the direction of Tynwald. They would also prefer regional amalgamation rather than just Port Erin and Port St. Mary. Now that says it all. They would like Tynwald to make the decision for them. We should not shirk the responsibility. We all know it is a nonsense for an Island our size to have 26 different rating authorities; too long Tynwald have dodged the issue despite the recommendations of several commissions. It is time we grasped the nettle and made a positive decision. Douglas Town Council have given us the lead. Despite the fact that they have most to lose in civic pride they are sensible enough to see what is best for the Island and are prepared to merge their identity into a wider authority. A memorandum from the Town Clerk which has been sent to all members indicates their readiness to co-operate in a major reorganisation of local government. This shows positive thinking.

There were some personal queries which were asked of me during the debate we have had, and some I have already dealt with, but the question raised by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Payne, when he made reference to the amount of rate support to Douglas from Central Government funds — although some members have already answered this point they also have failed to get the significance. Of course Douglas has had this amount of money from Central Government funds. But where does Central Government get their money from? They have none of their own; they collect it in taxation, and if you bother to do a little bit of calculation you will find that the majority of taxation, whether direct or indirect, comes from Douglas, so all you are doing is giving some of the money you have already taken off them in taxation back to them, and Mr. Radcliffe's Local Govern- ment Board back in 1967, from the extracts I quoted, recognised this.

The hon. member for Peel, Mr. David Moore, asked why Marown is included in the eastern district and not in the west. This is very simple. He must remember that originally Marown was in Middle and a look at the map will show that it is in the eastern district and not in the west, and it is not so long ago that Braddan was considering extending their boundary to bring in part of Marown which drains towards Union Mills.

The hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Faragher — I recognise his interest in local government, and he did make a reference to larger units and asked, what is large? Then he answered this question by saying "Small enough for ratepayers to know their representatives." I must remind hon. members that Douglas is made up of six separate wards, each with their own representatives who meet together to decide the affairs of the larger unit, Douglas. Now what is the difference between that and

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T275 an amalgamation of the smaller units of local government? He believes that abolition of domestic rates will be difficult to achieve but believes in more equitable payment between rural and urban areas, and that is one of my prime objectives, as he no doubt knows.

The hon. member for Middle, Mr. Catlin, said he was not in favour of the abolition of domestic rates, and where will the money come from if we do this? I would answer that by asking the question, where did the money come from to abolish the education rate, the fire rate, the highway rate and all the other rates we have already abolished and also, where does the money come from to pay for the Onchan roads since 1916? I would say we will get it from the same source.

I think I have covered most things now but before I conclude I would refer to the reference back moved by Mr. Lowey. I am not going to support a reference back; I believe in the views expressed by Mr. Gilbey and the hon. member for Council, Mr. Nivison, that we should reject this, but I would warn the supporters of the moves we are making: do not be divided by the attempts that have taken place in the Court today to stick solidly behind this. This is at least a step forward. It may not be the right answer, but if we get an indication today what the feeling of the Court is by the vote, then the committee can look further into the matter. I move sir.

The Governor: Hon. members, I put the amendment standing in Mr. Lowey's name which is before you. Those in favour please say aye; against no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys:—

For: Mr. Quirk. — 1

Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Cringle, Faragher, Brown, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare. — 21

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution fails to carry in the House of Keys, one vote being in favour and 21 votes against.

In the Council :-

For: Mr. Lowey. — 1

Against: Messrs. MacDonald, Moore, Radcliffe, Kerruish, Anderson and the President of the Council. — 6

The Governor: In the Council one in favour, six against. The amendment fails. I will now put the amendment standing in Mr. Gelling's name. Those in favour please say aye; against no.

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T276 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys:—

For: Messrs. Quinney, Martin, Gelling and Cain — 4

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Cringle, Faragher, Brown, Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Kneale, Dr. Moore and Dr. Teare — 18

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution fails to carry in the House of Keys, four votes being cast in favour and 18 votes against.

In the Council:—

For: Nil.

Against: Messrs. MacDonald, Moore, Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson and the President of the Council. — 7

The Governor: In the Council none in favour, seven against. The amendment fails. I will now put the resolution as on the Agenda Paper by paragraphs. Paragraph (a), the abolition of all existing combination authorities. Those in favour please say aye, against no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

For: Dr. Mann, Messrs. Cringle, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare — 12.

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Faragher and Brown — 10

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 12 votes being cast in favour and 10 votes against.

In the Council:—

For: Messrs. MacDonald and Moore — 2

Against: Messrs. Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson and the President of the Council — 5

The Governor: In the Council two in favour, five against. The paragraph fails. Paragraph (b). Those in favour please say aye; against no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T277

In the Keys:—

For: Dr. Mann, Messrs. Cringle, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare — 12

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Faragher and Brown — 10

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, the paragraph carries in the House of Keys, 12 votes being cast in favour and 10 votes against.

In the Council:—

For: Messrs. MacDonald and Moore — 2

Against: Messrs. Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson and the President of the Council — 5

The Governor: In the Council two in favour, five against. That section of the motion fails. Paragraph (c) (i); those in favour please say aye; against no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys:—

For: Dr. Mann, Messrs. Cringle, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare — 12

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Faragher and Brown — 10

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, the paragraph carried in the House of Keys, 12 votes being cast in favour and 10 votes against.

In the Council:—

For: Messrs. MacDonald and Moore — 2

Against: Messrs. Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson and the President of the Council — 5

The Governor: In the Council two in favour, five against. That section fails. Paragraph (c) (ii). Those in favour please say aye; against no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys:—

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. T278 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

For: Dr. Mann, Messrs. Cringle, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare — 12

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cain, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Faragher and Brown — 10

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, that paragraph carried in the House of Keys, 12 votes being cast in favour and 10 votes against.

In the Council:—

For: Messrs. MacDonald and Moore — 2

Against: Messrs. Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson and the President of the Council — 5

The Governor: In the Council two in favour, five against. That section fails. Paragraph (d). Those in favour please say aye; against no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys:—

For: Dr. Mann, Messrs. Cringle, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare — 11

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Faragher, Brown and Gelling - 11

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, in the House of Keys, 11 votes were cast in favour and 11 votes against.

In the Council:—

For: Messrs. MacDonald and Moore — 2

Against: Messrs. Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson and the President of the Council — 5

The Governor: In the Council two in favour, five against. That section fails. Finally paragraph (e). Those in favour please say aye; against no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys:—

For: Dr. Mann, Messrs. Cringle, Quinney, Duggan, Ward, Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and Dr. Teare — 12

Rating — Fourth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Debate Concluded. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T279

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Catlin, Maddrell, Payne, Faragher and Brown — 10

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, the paragraph carries in the House of Keys, 12 votes being cast in favour and 10 votes against.

In the Council:—

For: Messrs. MacDonald and Moore — 2

Against: Messrs. Radcliffe, Lowey, Kerruish, Anderson and the President of the Council — 5

The Governor: In the Council two in favour, five against. Paragraph (e) fails. The resolution fails.

Mr. Kneale: Your Excellency, under Standing Order 70 I give notice that at a subsequent meeting of this Court I will bring forward the same resolution.

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, on a point of clarification. Under Standing Order 70 there has to be a majority in the Keys. Will paragraph (d) be able to be put at the next sitting of Tynwald?

The Governor: I will investigate that and will tell you later when I have looked at the rules. Hon. members, we are coming to a crunch point for decision. I would like to be able to advise you at tea what we are going to do. What is going through my mind at the moment is that we should carry on tonight up until 7o'clock and not sit tomorrow, and leave what is not finished by then until next month.

It was agreed.

DUMB RIVER CATCHMENT AREA — MAP APPROVED

The Governor: Item number 28. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board.

Mr. Quirk:Your Excellency, I beg to move:

Whereas on the 21st June 1983 the Isle of Man Highway and Transport Board in exercise of the powers contained in section 6 of the Land Drainage Act 1934 made an Order directing that the area, the drainage of which is directed to the Dumb River, shall be added to the Second Schedule of such Act as a catchment area.

And whereas this Order was approved by Tynwald on the 12th July 1983.

Dumb River Catchment Area — Map Approved. T280 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

And whereas the Highway and Transport Board has caused to be prepared in relation to such catchment area a map, which is available for inspection in the Members' Writing Room, determining the extent of such catchment area, and showing in distinctive colour that part of the channel and backs of the Dumb River which is to be treated as a main river for the purposes of the Act.

And whereas in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Act the board has caused to be published in two newspapers printed and published in this Island a notice stating that the map has been prepared and specifying the place at which this map may be inspected, with the time, not being less than one month, within which, and the manner in which objections thereto may be made.

And whereas no objection to the map has been received.

Now therefore Tynwald resolves that the map be and the same is hereby approved.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1983 (U.K. PARLIAMENT) — EXTENSION TO ISLE OF MAN — APPROVED

The Governor: Item number 31. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Harbour Board.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That Her Majesty be requested to direct, by Order in Council, that the Merchant Shipping Act 1983 shall extend to the Isle of Man with the appropriate exceptions, adaptations and modifications.

The Governor: Is that agreed? It was agreed.

NUCLEAR MATERIAL (OFFENCES) ACT 1983 (U.K. PARLIAMENT) — EXTENSION TO ISLE OF MAN — APPROVED

The Governor: Item number 32. I call upon the Chairman of Executive Council.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

Merchant Shipping Act 1983 (U.K. Parliament) Extension to Isle of Man — Approved. Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983 (U.K. Parliament) — Extension to Isle of Man — Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T281

That Her Majesty be respectfully requested to direct, by Order in Council, that the provisions of the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983 of Parliament shall extend to the Isle of Man with appropriate exceptions, adaptations and modifications.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

BRITISH FISHING BOATS ACT 1983 (U.K. PARLIAMENT) — EXTENSION TO ISLE OF MAN — APPROVED

The Governor: Item number 33. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. J. N. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That Tynwald hereby requests Her Majesty by Order in Council to direct that the provisions of the British Fishing Boats Act 1983 of the United Kingdom Parliament —

(a) shall extend to the Isle of Man and to waters adjacent thereto within the fishery limits of the British Island;

(b) shall apply to British fishing boats registered in the Isle of Man as they apply to such boats registered in the United Kingdom;

with appropriate exceptions, adaptations and modifications.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

ENERGY ACT 1983 AND CONGENITAL DISABILITIES (CIVIL LIABILITY) ACT 1976 (U.K. PARLIAMENT) —EXTENSION TO ISLE OF MAN — APPROVED

The Governor: Item number 34. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Local Government Board.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

British Fishing Boats Act 1983 (U.K. Parliament) — Extension to Isle of Man — Approved. Energy Act 1983 and Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (U.K. Parliament) — Extension to Isle of Man — Approved. T282 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

That Her Majesty be respectfully requested to direct, by Order in Council, that the provisions of Part II of the Energy Act 1983 of Parliament and section 3 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 of Parliament shall extend to the Isle of Man with appropriate exceptions, adaptations and modifications.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

The Governor: I intend immediately after tea with your agreement, because for administrative reasons it is important, to take item 36 which is Manx Radio. (Agreed). We will adjourn for tea until 5.10 p.m.

The Court adjourned at 4.43 p.m.

RATING — PROCEDURAL

The Governor: The answer to your query, hon. member Mr. Payne, is that, as that failed to get a majority in the Keys, it cannot be raised for at least six months.

MANX RADIO — BROADCASTING POLICY — AMENDED RESOLUTION APPROVED

The Governor: We turn to item 36. I am very keen to get items 36 and 37 done this evening. I call on the hon. member for Michael, Mr. Cannan.

Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That Tynwald is of the opinion that Manx Radio has ceased to be a local radio station catering for the needs of the Isle of Man, and requires Executive Council to give instructions to the management of the Station to reverse its present policy of providing a service to the community by broadcasting all programmes on the medium waveband.

Your Excellency, I am placing this motion before Tynwald because I believe that the broadcasting policies of Manx Radio have now become a matter of concern throughout the Island. I am fully aware that Manx Radio was a matter of debate in this Court only 10 months ago, and I am not too proud to admit that I made an error of judgment in giving qualified support to the then policies of Manx Radio, though I did stress my dissatisfaction at the policy of transmitting the programmes with a Manx content on V.H.F. only when many residents in the north and northwest of this Island are unable to receive the transmissions. However, in good faith and trusting in the good will of the management of Manx Radio I gave them my conditional support. However I raised again, at Tynwald last May, the matter of the provision of the V.H.F. repeater station for the north-west of the

Rating — Procedural Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T283

Island, and that it would be unacceptable if the T.T. race commentary in the following month were to be broadcast only on V.H.F., but I received only platitudes and I felt as though I were a voice crying in the wilderness.

Meanwhile, the management of Manx Radio took it as a signal following the debate last December that they had carte blanche to provide whatever programme on whatever wavelength suited them with total disregard to the views, wishes and aspirations of Island residents. Now, sir, I consider this arrogance, because the Island residents are paying £600 a day, every day of the year, to keep Manx Radio broadcasting, and without that subsidy Manx Radio would cease operations. Indeed, there are some people who, because Manx Radio is now so out of touch with public opinion, might say that is no bad thing, and I believe the Government- appointed directors give the impression that they also are immune to public question, but Manx people are not so docile, and when in May this year it was discovered — and I say "discovered" because Manx Radio did not announce the fact in advance — that the T.T. race commentary was to be broadcast only on V.H.F., there was public outcry throughout the Island. There was protest from almost every section of the Island community, and I have here letters from people in nearly every constituency represented in this Court in support of a change of policy at Manx Radio. The Tourist Board, a board of Government, issued a strong statement condemning the policy of the T.T. broadcast on V.H.F. Executive Council was asked to intervene and to support their own Tourist Board. Meanwhile the management of Manx Radio were themselves too proud to admit that they had made an error of judgment and so reversed their decision and broadcast the T.T. races on the medium wave, and so the nett result was something akin to a mini- debate at question time in the Tynwald of last June.

Did Manx Radio take any notice of the views expressed that day? They did not give it so much as a second thought, and so, hon. members, during the past summer — and it has been a beautiful summer — the visitors to our shores, whilst they have been basking in the sunshine on the beaches of Douglas and Port Erin and Port St. Mary and elsewhere, have listened to Manx Radio's advertisements extolling the virtues of Rhyl and Prestatyn and Colwyn Bay and the comforts of hotels at Blackpool and the Lake District. Doubtless these visitors must have wondered what they were doing here in the Isle of Man when the Island's own radio was telling them they should have been visiting another resort. My sympathies go out to the Tourist Board and their hard-working staff, who have made such strenuous efforts to bring tourists here, only to find Manx Radio acting as a fifth column and advising them that they should be somewhere else. And so it will continue, hon. members, because the General Manager informed me in writing that if present policies are continued to continue the commentary on the T.T. races next June, an event largely subsidised and promoted by this Government — and I understand it is to be bigger and better than ever, and the object of the Government promotion is to give world wide coverage and attraction — and this letter says that you can take it that the broadcasts will be once again on V.H.F. only, and I also suspect there will be one commentary point less.

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T284 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

Hon. members, does this make any sense to you? To me and, I believe, to the majority of the Island residents, it makes no sense, and now we have before us the directors' report for the year ending 31st March. We have all seen the directors' report, and a copy of the accounts has been available for members' perusal, and the message emanating from both the report and the accounts is that attempts at being a regional radio have not been, and will not be, financially viable, and I will not waste the Court's time in going through the detail on those reports and accounts. You have read them for yourselves, hon. members, and they speak for themselves, and it has been a sad story.

Your Excellency, the motion is before this Court. Island residents do not want to hear the Welsh news; they do not want to know what is happening in Blackpool and Fleetwood. They do not want our visitors, after they have arrived here at some expense, to be told of the virtues of holiday resorts elsewhere in north-west England and North Wales, and above all, the Manx people do not want to have a regional radio station, and so I believe the Government has four options before it when considering Manx Radio. The first of them is to leave things as they are, and if so I will carry on a war of attrition, single-handed if necessary, conditional upon my having public support. The second option is to hand over to the B.B.C. and so have B.B.C. Radio Isle of Man, just as in the Channel Islands they have B.B.C. Radio Jersey and B.B.C. Radio Guernsey. There is no cost to the local taxpayer, because the cost comes out of the fee which you pay for your television licence. The third option is to hand over entirely to private enterprise and allow the radio station to become a sort of folksy loudspeaker system for the Island, similar to the local radio stations in Australia and the United States. I doubt whether that is a financial proposition, whether it is viable at this time of recession. I bear in mind that only a few weeks ago a radio station in England, Radio Leicester, ceased trading and other independent radio stations are in financial trouble. So I come, Your Excellency, to the fourth option, and I believe that it will command popular support, the provision of a local radio station catering for the needs of the Isle of Man and promoting the Island and all its events and broadcasting all its programmes on the medium wave.

I believe the Manx taxpayers are prepared to subsidise the radio, providing they receive the service they wish to receive and not, as at present, receive the service that they are made to receive, so I believe that to achieve this there must be new directors appointed whose terms of reference are within the parameters of this motion, and the directors will have to take drastic action if they are to stabilise the situation at Manx Radio. So let us set out our priorities and let us see what we would like to have. I believe the Island needs a radio station. It needs to broadcast all its programmes on the medium wave so that they can be received in every corner of the Island, and the medium wave transmission power to remain as at present so that people living in Wales and north-east England and Northern Ireland and Scotland and Eire can receive, if they so wish, a Manx radio station that is broadcasting for the benefit of the Island and promoting all its events. Basically all that is required is a "no-frills" radio station, bearing in mind the subsidy that is required. I would suggest that from 6.30 in the morning until 8.00 in the evening is sufficient.

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T285

It is not for us to try and imitate an expensive and late night music station; the medium waveband is full of music. Economies will have to be taken: the closing down of the V.H.F. transmission, because it seems pointless to me to run two transmissions in parallel with two sets of announcers and two sets of reports, terminating the contracts for the provision of Welsh and English local news — and if you look in your accouts in the small print, it is costing a lot; to close down the offices and terminate the agencies and cease all operations in Wales and North-West England. I believe that this has been of no financial benefit to this Island, it has instead been an expense, and I would say sell or bring home the Millennium caravan, as I believe it is somewhere on the Welsh coast. It may well be that there has to be an immediate review of staff requirements; so be it. We cannot go on sending programme contributor's on all expenses-paid visits to England and Wales until the financial situation is stabilised, and I would suggest that Manx Radio itself does not financially sponsor events and people taking part in events, again until they have their financial situation under control.

So, Your Excellency, it is time for a change at Manx Radio. Manx Radio Limited belongs to the Government and people of the Isle of Man, and I believe they are entitled to have the programmes transmitted in accordance with their wishes. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr. Duggan: I beg to second, Your Excellency. I feel that there is certainly some merit in the resolution before us today, it would at least enable all the Island's listeners to get suitable all-Island coverage from our radio station. However, I also think the station should be utilised more fully to promote the Island's tourist industry, and I question the Chairman of the Tourist Board, why his board does not take full advantage of the potential for advertising the Island on Manx Radio. Also, why do other boards of Government hesitate to use the station for Press notices, et cetera? It seems to be a very poor show that this Government itself shows an apparent lack of support for the station. Surely we should be the guiding light, and start to take advantage of the service Manx Radio has to offer our Island and this Government, and maybe then it will be more viable.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, as hon. members are aware, I have put forward an amendment to the resolution before us today regarding Manx Radio:

For all words after "That" substitute -

'a Select Committee be appointed to investigate and report upon

(a) Manx Radio;

(b) the future of local radio broadcasting within the Isle of Man: and

The reason for my amendment, Your Excellency, is because I believe we need to take a serious and long look and consider the importance of a local radio station

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T286 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. to the Island and its community. We have tended to get to the point of talking about Manx Radio. What we should be talking about, including Manx Radio, is a local radio station, and may I dissociate myself from the criticism of the Manage- ment Committee, who are working to their terms of reference given them by this hon. Court, and therefore doing a job they were instructed to do, and not doing a job they may have enjoyed, and I believe that may come out in the report.

My amendment requests that a committee of Tynwald investigates the question of local radio in the Isle of Man. My amendment says: (a) it investigates Manx Radio; (b) the future of local radio broadcasting within the Isle of Man; and (c), the financing thereof. These are the three main things that we need to know before we as the Government of this Island can commit money to Manx Radio on a long- term basis and secure its future if that is what we require. We need to investigate Manx Radio and its future role on and off the Isle of Man, whether we should cater for people off the Isle of Man or whether we should just broadcast programmes for the Island, and if people off the Isle of Man pick it up then they are getting the benefit of what we should have, and it would be a good radio station. If we can pick up any advertising through that then I believe we should. We need to know how many hours it should broadcast. How important the station is to the Isle of Man, its tourism, the T.T. races, the community programmes, the people of the Island, what goes on in this hon. Court, and many more things that are important to the people who are listening to Manx Radio. How much is it to raise in revenue? How much can it raise in revenue? We have an idea it is a small community that it mainly deals with. There is a cost that we have to keep within if the people of the Isle of Man and the businesses of the Island can afford to pay, and will pay, to advertise on that station. If you go too high you lose more revenue than you gain.

The staffing of the station needs to be looked into. And what do we really want from Manx Radio? I believe that wants to be looked into, because in this hon. Court we all have different ideas and outside, the public also have different ideas, and we need to know a general consensus of what people of the Isle of Man want from a local radio station.

The future of local radio broadcasting in the Isle of Man — how we feel we can get the best for our community; total Island coverage is a criticism that has been made time and time again. We have the V.H.F. service and the medium wave service. Do we need to build a booster up north, at a considerable amount of money if we can put on a decent service on the medium wave which therefore takes that away? I personally believe that we should keep the V.H.F. service because it gives us another type of service, whether it is the same or not; at certain times of the year we have things like the T.T. and for the Island we could put on programmes for people who do not want the T.T. That is one of the reasons it was started and that was how it was used. Whether we need even Manx Radio Limited to do the job for us or whether we have to look elsewhere, and can we get better service elsewhere? Regarding the B.B.C. I very much doubt it. What I would like to see is the revenue, no matter how small, that we pay in our licence fee returned to this Island to at least contribute something towards the cost of running Manx Radio or a local station on the Island.

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T287

The future financing of Manx Radio and/or a local radio station broadcasting from the Isle of Man may be the most important question of all. How much can the Isle of Man afford to pay to have a station that it no doubt requires? There is no doubt that the people of this Island want a local radio station. There is no doubt that they want it to be about the Isle of Man and not about anywhere else. I do not think they are so naive that they do not want to hear about what is going on elsewhere, but I think we at least want to make it a station where we have the news that is national news as much as the local news, because otherwise people will have to do what they had to do once before, which is turn on the B.B.C. at the very time that the Manx news is on, and therefore we can cater for both.

A small community can only provide so much revenue, through taxation or through advertising, so they are the two most important points that we have to look at very seriously. We need to call in the experts. We need to discuss with the people who know about running a radio station, who are involved today in running a radio station, to give us the facts so that a decision can be made by the committee who will look at this thoroughly and bring back a report to this hon. Court, because one thing we do not want is for members to make a decision or even not make a full decision, and then we criticise it for the next five years. This constant criticism of the station does not do it any good, and it does not do us any good. We need to secure the future of Manx Radio, and I would suggest that if we were to get rid of it at all, you would find the people of the Isle of Man would certainly have a few hangings to do. Again, Your Excellency, it is about the money and the service; there are too many things we have to sort out once and for all. Constantly for the last few years there has been this criticism, battling, money-talk, how may hours, and so it has gone on without somebody actually getting down to the job and sorting out what is required, and I have never felt that has been a job for the directors. That is the job for somebody in Government to do. I would like to see it done by a Select Committee.

The future of Manx Radio I believe is very important to the Isle of Man and its community. It is a type of media this Island could now not do without. It has been there for a long time and some people may say it would not matter if we lost it, but once it was gone they would know how much it did matter to the Island. Let us not let our own emotions spoil our vision, because that is the problem. So many people over the past year have criticised Manx Radio — and a lot of it unfairly - and they have got so worked up about it that they have not been able to settle down to discuss it properly. A rash decision would be disastrous to Manx Radio and the Isle of Man, and I believe that could happen.

The reason for my amendment, Your Excellency, is that I believe that the amendment which is coming up later from the Chairman of Executive Council does not go broad enough. It is very limited in what it says there on what the Home Affairs is to do. It also puts a deadline on it; it ties the hands behind the backs of the committee on what they are to do. If we are to do this, surely it is better to look at it properly in one go and sort it out properly than to rush through and try to get it done in a short period of time, because we are talking of four months, and in that four months is the Christmas period, and during that time it is always

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T288 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

difficult to try and get information and sort things out — in other words, you have a gap. I believe that a Select Committee could have an independent look at it, it would not be the board involved with it that are involved with it now — I am not criticising that board, but I believe their priority will also be looking at what they have to do as a board in the general terms of their business.

As I say, Your Excellency, I hope that members will support my amendment because I believe it is important that once and for all we sort out where Manx Radio is going, because this constant barrage of criticism is no good to anybody. We must solve the uncertainty of Manx Radio for everybody's benefit, because then we can get down to producing a radio station that we can all be proud of and one that can do a job that the people of this Island require. I beg to move.

The Governor: Is there a seconder to that amendment? That amendment is not seconded; the debate continues. I call upon the hon. member, Mr. Gelling.

Mr. Gelling: Your Excellency, it is clear to me from the chairman's recent report that the directors and management of the station, despite the fact that they are highly respectable and successful business people in their own field, are not equipped to tackle the very special problems of organising a financially successfully commercial radio station, and I suspect that they would all be happy to be relieved of that responsibility. At the same time Manx Radio is providing a most invaluable and popular service which I believe we must do our utmost to preserve, not necessarily in its present form but in a form which will provide a good local service trimmed back to match the financial constraints which are being placed upon us all in the current recession.

First and foremost, I believe it requires a managing director with a proven track record in running such a station of this size, and I believe for this person we must look outside the Isle of Man as we were belatedly forced to do in connection with banking and insurance supervision, and bearing in mind the losses which the station is likely to incur under the present regime, we could afford to offer an attractive salary and even a bonus to attract the right person. Such people do exist and there are agencies who can find them, so let us go and find them.

In the short term I believe the proposals tabled by the hon. member Mr. Cannan will assist in bringing costs under some degree of control and will concentrate the efforts of all staff into one good locally oriented channel, which may reduce staffing levels but which will reach all parts of the Island. Further savings could be made by reducing the number of hours of broadcasting, and I agree with Mr. Cannan that probably 14 hours a day is quite sufficient. It is all very well trying to emulate the B.B.C., but we do not have the financial resources with which to do it and I do not honestly believe that the majority of listeners or advertisers are expecting it, when the alternative may be no station at all.

With regard to regional advertisers, I personally do not object to Jones the undertaker advertising his services ...

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T289

Mr. Duggan: Hear, hear! (Laughter)

Mr. Gelling: But I do object most strongly to subsidising advertisements which exhort potential tourists to holiday outside the Isle of Man. I have the same objections about regional news and outside broadcasts in the regions, and this is one area where I believe that Executive Council should lay down firm guidelines.

From my conversations with constituents I believe that this motion, and the remarks I have made and those of Mr. Cannan, more clearly reflect the wishes of Manx listeners than do the present policies of Manx Radio and I hope, therefore, that this motion is carried and that Executive Council will go further by instituting an expert reappraisal of this facility under new and properly qualified management. I am not suggesting that Manx Radio can ever be fully self-financing, but I believe that every effort has got to be made to make it as near so as possible. I believe that Manx residents are currently paying over £1 million a year to the United Kingdom Government in radio and television licence fees; a proportion of this is used to finance local radio stations up and down the United Kingdom, but not Manx Radio. It would be helpful to know what the proportion of this fee is that can be claimed back as a subsidy to Manx Radio which is, after all, owned by the Manx Govern- ment in the same way as the B.B.C. is owned by the United Kingdom Government. Perhaps Executive Council can also give this matter some thought. I beg to support the motion.

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, if I could just recap briefly in the time I spent as Chairman of Finance Board, when the Manx Radio issue came before the Finance Board for consideration it would appear at that time that there seemed to be a blank cheque available. Whatever the deficiency was, the Government paid it and, as with every other department of Government, should be under the control of Finance Board through their estimates and there should be a ceiling put on their expenditure. Directors came forward, and to give credit to the present directors they said at that time, "If you want us to try to make this radio station come anywhere near to breaking even or to reduce considerably its deficits, then you and all other departments of Government will be paying for the services provided and we will try to get outside broadcasting into the United Kingdom to earn revenue." They have tried to do that, but apparently it has not been successful, and I would &lust like to say at this stage that we should be grateful to the gentlemen concerned NV who, as businessmen, were prepared to step in when asked by the Government, to do a job and have tried to the best of their ability to do it. So you read the chairman's report, and he says on page 2, "However unpalatable, it must now be faced that the best our shareholders can hope for is to contain the total cost for having a Manx Radio station at a cost of around £200,000 for the next few years." Now the hon. member moving the resolution has said, and as the hon. member for West .I Douglas who has just resumed his seat has said and what we in the Isle of Man are all saying, we would like to have a Manx radio station, we would like to have it as Manx as possible, but we do not want to give it a blank cheque on expenditure, and I would just very briefly come to the point at issue, either the point made by the hon. mover of the resolution or the point that I am going to make is that when he asked Executive Council to follow an investigation, on Executive Council, as you

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T290 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. are all aware, we have the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board, along with the Chairman of the Board of Education who is a member of the Home Affairs Board, who looks after the types of programming to be done and the programmes to be put out by the radio station. To me, they are elected as a board of Tynwald to do a certain duty.

Speaking candidly, I am not a great believer in Select Committees for the simple reason that for a Select Committee to get its information it has got to go and find the information in the first place from the people who are from day to day actively engaged in the project, so I beg to move the amendment which was circulated last time we sat in Tynwald:

That Tynwald requests the Home Affairs Board, in consultation with Executive Council, to examine the policy and financing of Manx Radio and the possible options with regard to its future method of operation and report to Tynwald with recommendations not later than the February 1984 sitting.

I know the hon. member of Castletown's amendment was not seconded, but he did comment on the fact that by saying February, we were tying the hands of whoever is going to make this investigation. Surely, if an investigation cannot be carried out between October 1983 and February 1984 there is something radically wrong with our departments and boards of Tynwald, and I think from the point of view of everybody connected with Manx Radio, they would like to know what their future is (Hear, hear), and the sooner we get on with this investigation the better for everybody concerned and the sooner we will be able possibly to get back to having what every hon. member of this Court looks for. I am not going to go into a great lot of detail. I think the principle is the one we have to decide on today, and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, I beg to second the amendment as moved by the Chairman of Executive Council, and I quite genuinely say to members that this is the right and proper way in which this matter can be handled. It is already evident from the discussion which has taken place on this floor this afternoon that members are aware that all is not well. They are a little unsure of exactly what action should be taken. Is it that Government should run Manx Radio — end of story — or, as the member for West Douglas has intimated, should there be some high-powered gentleman brought in to operate it, and almost the suggestion put by the hon. member for Michael, that it should be thrown completely out to free enterprise? That was the third of your four suggestions which was thrown up, so that suggestion was put into the minds of hon. members of this Court.

You may very well be aware that, as far as the Home Affairs Board committee has been concerned, it has no right to direct in any respect, but I would just like to read for members an item from the September minutes of the Broadcasting Committee and just quote a little part from it, where it says that "It was agreed that the shareholders of Radio Manx Limited should be informed that it was the view of the committee that Manx Radio's regional policy has been a failure and that

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T291

it should revert to first being a local station with its programme output being geared to the needs and tastes of the people of the Isle of Man." That was September.

We come round to October, and just to clear this one once and for all — because once again, it is part and parcel of the argument of why I am seeking to support the Chairman of Executive Council's amendment — yesterday at the Broadcasting Committee, when we were discussing estimates for the coming year — and it is very important, I am sure as far as the hon. member for Michael is concerned — we were considering within our capital whether or not we could make provision for this booster station at Knock y Doonee at Andreas to which the hon. member for Castletown has referred, quite genuinely within our priorities we did not see it as a priority and we could not, even in this next year, bearing in mind the situation, see us being able to put that forward as a priority in our capital. That shows that the Home Affairs Board have an interest in it, and I am just saying that in reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Castletown as to should we have this feeder station, so that would solve it. We have already made the decision; it was made yesterday, but as far as we are concerned at this stage it cannot be high on our priority list, so I would ask members to support the amendment as moved by the Chairman of Executive Council and I would certainly think that the Home Affairs Board and Executive Council would be able to give a full report to this hon. Court next February.

Mr. Anderson: Your Excellency, I am rising to second the amendment put forward by the hon. Chairman of Executive Council. I think this is the way forward. It is totally unacceptable that I think, as far as most people are concerned, that they are making such a contribution and they feel much of the message going out was not in their best interest as far as the Island was concerned, and when I was on the Home Affairs Board we had many discussions at that time, and I must say, in fairness to the directors and the people responsible, they actually took action to put the phone-in programme on V.H.F. because it was going across and not giving the Island the best possible image, and that was one of the reasons that was altered. The difficulty is that they stuck on so many other things as well and again as a member of the Tourist Board, it was totally unacceptable to me that we would not have this service as far as the T.T. and Manx Grand Prix races were concerned, and my Chairman of the Tourist Board will confirm that it was one of the criticisms that we met when we were in London talking to the people responsible for organising the T.T. races in the Isle of Man — a lot of criticism, even from those who we met, that by 1983 they could not get the broadcast round the T.T. course as they had had previously. Now if, for this very major event in the Isle of Man calendar, we cannot have the service of our local radio it is totally unacceptable considering the contribution that we are making, and I believe that the direction in which we are heading as far as this amendment is concerned is the right one, because on the committee of the Home Affairs Board we have the hon. member, Mr. Kneale, who actually has a very wide knowledge and has had a lot of experience as far as the running of a radio station is concerned and I am sure, if there is anyone capable of ferreting into what is necessary for remedying this situation, the hon. member, Mr. Kneale, together with his chairman and with the help of Executive Council will do that. But I think I would agree with the member for Kirk Michael in

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T292 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. his comment that the Manx people on the whole are prepared to pay a reasonable amount for the local radio station but not one that is going to work against their best interests, and I am sure that this is the widely held view of most of the people of the Isle of Man. I support the amendment.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I support the amendment standing in the name of the Chairman of Executive Council. I was going to put in an amendment myself, but I think this one is short enough time to make mine superfluous and I do believe that Executive Council should be involved.

I do not want to say in this Court "I told you so," but I think, on re-reading the debate of 10 months ago, if I was reading that speech today I would not alter a syllable or miss out a comma; what I said then is equally germane today. There is no doubt at all that Manx Radio unfortunately has gone off course and is not having the success that I am quite sure everybody was hoping for it. The Chairman of Executive Council did mention page two of the Annual Report of the Chairman of Manx Radio Limited; he did omit the third paragraph on the second page, and this is of immense importance. The chairman says "At this stage the board could only recommend to its shareholders' . . . and that is the Government — "that on commercial grounds the company is insolvent and should cease trading. On commercial grounds there is no justification in further financial support, as there is no prospect of the company breaking even, let alone providing a return on invest- ments. It is not for the board to recommend that the station keeps operating." Now you could not get a clearer message than that; you could not, and therefore I believe the hon. member for Kirk Michael has done this Court a service by putting this on the Agenda for debate, because if the Annual General Meeting is next week — and I believe it is next week — I just wonder who is going to represent the shareholders and what are the views of the shareholders going to be, and I have waited to hear the Chairman of Executive Council to say we have instructed our nominees shareholders to go to that meeting and say "Cease trading", or are they saying carry on while this committee looks into the progress or the plans that Government may have for the station? We have two distinct possibilities. At this stage of the year we will be doing the financial accounting for the next year. We will be doing estimates if we have not already started them. That applies to Radio Manx as well, and so the die in effect is being cast, and that is why I think three months is the maximum that I would have thought was allowable in the circumstances, but I am posing the question, what are the shareholders going to do at the Annual General Meeting next week? What instructions are they going to give to their board of directors? I think somebody in Government should tell the Court this afternoon just what instructions are being given to the shareholders.

Your Excellency, I am not going to prolong it other than to say that I will be supporting the resolution because it makes sense, and I am not here apportioning blame on directors, I am not here apportioning blame on staff, I am just saying that Manx Radio has failed and I believe that we do have to get it under financial control and I do believe also that we have to get, as I said in the resolution that I moved 10 months ago, the shape of what we want of the station, and I would be failing in my duty if, as Chairman of the Isle of Man Tourist Board, I said that I

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T293

was more than irritated with what has been said about Manx Radio throughout this summer. It has been more than an irritation. The people who are out selling the Isle of Man, getting people here to the Isle of Man — we had high ranking people over from London, consultants who were coming to advise the board on various things; to be met at the airport and to turn the car radio on and be told, "This is Manx Radio, our local station," and for the first thing to be blasted at them is extolling the virtues and the beauties and all the pluses of our near competitors — well, it really just was indescribable; their words are unrepeatable on the floor of this Court. I would be breaking Standing Orders if I dared to repeat!

The hon. member of Council, Mr. Anderson, is absolutely right when he said the national Press had plenty to say about it when they were in London talking about the T.T. races for 1983, and we also got it very much in the neck from the Auto- Cycle Union and others after the meeting which was held a fortnight ago organising the programmes for next year, and so therefore for a whole variety of reasons I am less than happy with the service that has been rendered to the Isle of Man by our so-called national station.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I am very sorry for Manx Radio but I am not, unlike a lot of the members, going to say that this is something new to me. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat — if he checks through there he will aso find the words in that report, "This is not going to work." Unfortunately, not being one of the superpowers, it was I that said it, but I said it because I do not believe, as I said at that time, that Government can solve its problems by passing its responsibilities on to directors, private or otherwise. It just does not work that way; no matter how brilliant they might be, it just does not work. It is just like to try and ask any of the executives who may be appointed to run the coal mines or British Rail to suddenly get rid of the deficits — it cannot be done. I said at the time, it was done for political expediency, passed off to three gentlemen who were very efficient, and as has been said, very good businessmen.

Now a lot has been said about tuning, in in the morning and finding advertisements on from Wales, Blackpool, all these other places. You are bound to get that. Any logic you can put to the situation where you say to three businessmen, "Go out and make money," and if they can find money across the other side of the water they are carrying out the obligations you gave them. You cannot have it both ways. I am delighted in one thing only -and I am supporting the resolution and not the amendment: the resolution says exactly what it means and it means exactly what it says. We want a local radio station and we want to understand we have got a local radio station. If we are ever to go through the exercise again of pulling it back in and then, as one of the members of the Court who was put back originally as Dr. Mann was and other people before him, and as Mr. Walker was, it is a job that is never going to be satisfactory, because we are all experts as we are in tourism when running radio stations. Everybody you meet in the street, they all know how to run a radio station; they want their favourite records on, they want certain types of music, they want to hear certain types of programmes — everybody, in the same way as they are experts in tourism. I feel, Your Excellency, that if it goes back to Executive Council — and I have the greatest respect for the two members who, it

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T294 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. has been pointed out, are members of the Home Affairs Board responsible overall for broadcasting under the 1946 Act, if I remember — that is not going to solve the problem either. There is more to it now, sir. I think it has been taken a step because this Court wanted to and not further. I think there is a responsibility not only to the taxpayer now but to the people we have employed on behalf of the taxpayer. I think they have got a certain little thought to be put for their benefit, and if somebody turns round tomorrow and says ... For instance, I am aware they have not had according to the report they have not had a wage rise for two or three years I mean to say, this is the sort of thing that is going to go on if it comes back; they will start cutting staff down, they will start doing this and doing the other, and at the end of the day the critics will still be in this Court and outside. They will not solve the problem, there will still be people telephoning members or complaining to you in the street that Manx Radio does not suit them.

What I would like to see is exactly what the resolution says with one little variation, and I am not going to amend it, because I think Executive Council should. I think Radio Manx Limited has proved unsuccessful because it does not work in the best interests of the people of the Isle of Man. Financially maybe, but in the interests of people of the Isle of Man it does not, because the commitment to a financial undertaking is to make money, a commitment to the Manx people is to run it in their best interests which might not always be about making money, so what I am saying is I would like to see Manx Radio finished, wound up, put back on the shelf and to come back probably to the people who should be responsible for it, the two hon. members and the board concerned. Now I do not know if that is going to find favour in the long term, but I must say — and I was right at the time — the only thing that surprises me is it has taken such a short time to finish up back on the floor of this Court. I thought at least it was going to take a year or 18 months but it has taken a much shorter period than that, and I do not think you are going to solve it once again by palming it off. I think, put it back to the board concerned and I know, looking at Mr. Speaker, that he at one time was involved. I am not saying everything was wonderful and people were doing well, but I know from reading the past debates and reading reports that it at least got down to what the actual resolution is asking for and Manx Radio finishes. If that can be done - and take it from me, a back-bencher, Your Excellency — I think any commonsense will tell you that by doing this and pretending you are going to solve the problem by bringing it back and then redirecting the directors to do something else, you are not going to solve the problem, sir. Get rid of the directors, they have done a very good job, they have done exactly what they were asked to do; go back to the board responsible — I think that is the Home Affairs Board — and get back to what it was, with all the problems you are going to have, a Manx radio station.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, first of all I would like to say that, as for radio licence fees, there are not any such things today. The licence fee we pay is a television licence fee and there is no contribution made for radio, so if people think they can cut out some of the television licence fee I would ask to think very carefully and think very much again, because the amount the B.B.C. must be getting for their repeater stations and the broadcast station beamed to the Isle of

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T295

Man must be so small they could happily cut the whole lot out tomorrow without a shadow of doubt.

The other thing, Your Excellency, I would warn the Court against is thinking that you can run a Governemnt-run Manx Radio station, you can if you decide the Government will tell everybody what to do. You can if you decide you are going to run a dictatorial type of station that broadcasts what we think or the Govern- ment thinks or — God help us when we get a ministerial system — what the Chief Minister thinks! (Laughter)

Mr. P. Radcliffe: Sit down!

Mr. MacDonald: So this we must avoid as well. The other thing is that Executive Council, as I think my colleagues all know here today, have a meeting on Thursday. Having heard what Tynwald says today, undoubtedly the chairman will raise the matter in Executive Council; they will decide what instruction is to be given to our representatives at the board meeting of Manx Radio next week.

There is another thing, Your Excellency, and that is that some years ago I was involved with Manx Radio — the original station — for Tynwald. I had spent about 21/4 years introducing S.L.B.S. and S.L.T.V. in West Africa, which are still running — that is secretary to a ministry — and I remember saying at the time, make your minds up what you want. Do you want to broadcast, as the late T.H. Corkhill did, to Moscow? Do you want to broadcast to the United Kingdom? Do you want to be a mini or big Radio Luxembourg? Nobody has as yet made their mind up, because having had a station quite ample and a transmitter quite big enought to do what we want to do in the Isle of Man it was Tynwald that decided. The motion came to Tynwald to buy bigger and better transmitters. We ended up with a 10-kilowatt transmitter, a sheer waste of money, as I said at the time. You do not need that power. If you are a radio expert I will accept it; if you are good at farming and radio, then I will sit down. You can quite easily — and Victor Kneale and I discussed this in London with the Post Office Authority at the time — with the right aerial system you can cover most of the Island but you will never cover the lot, you will never blanket the whole Island with a low-powered transmitter. You just will not do it, but you can fix in repeaters, but repeaters cost money. The set count for the Isle of Man is so low, except possibly in the summer with people wandering about, you will never run this viably — not a snowball's hope of making a viable station out of it. It is a very low set count, and it is not the staff's fault; It is not the directors' fault you have put in; they have done a very good job. The staff are very loyal to their station; the programme is good considering (a) what they are paid and (b) what we expect of them, but I do feel that the whole thing wants really looking at and once and for all for Tynwald to decide what does it want. Stop messing about with a radio station that is trying to be commercial one minute and being told to be commercial and the next minute people saying they they cannot spend money. You have got to make your minds up. If there is a fault it lies in Tynwald. You cannot blame the staff, you cannot blame the directors of the station. The fault lies absolutely rock solid here, so what the Executive Council has got to decide and what the Home Affairs Board has got to

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T296 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

decide is, what do they need to carry out the wishes of the Manx people? And if that is beyond reality, close it down.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, there are several factors that are very important in the immediate decision to refer this back to the Home Affairs Board. One is that we are of course in the middle of the financial year; secondly, we have a board of directors at the moment who loyally have been attempting to carry out the instructions they received when they were appointed, and if we are to suddenly appoint a committee or a group of people or even the Home Affairs Board looking into the affairs of the radio station we must agree on the continuity of the service while it is being looked into, and particularly that we do not instil a state of insecurity in the station. As the hon. member of Council has just said, this situation is not the fault of the people working at the station, but it is our responsibility to ensure that both continuity and support is given to the people who are operating the station at this moment, and it is very important that we come to a conclusion quickly.

There have been a lot of muddled comments made here this evening; there is a lot, I regret to say, of muddled thinking in the original resolution, because there are obviously opinions as to what could be done and of course these vary enormously, but there is muddled thinking as well. I think it is perfectly true that the directors did what they were told to do, and the people employed by the station, in many ways objected to by a lot of people, tried to maximise the financial return. Now they hit a recession situation and so their attempts have come to nought, and we have got to accept this situation. But one thing I will never accept, and that is that the structure that we finally agreed a few years ago should be reversed, and certainly not that members of the Home Affairs Board should be running the radio station, and this is the danger of referring this matter back to the Home Affairs Board because there are certain members sitting on the Home Affairs Board who are quite prepared to run this station and tell you they can do it better than anybody else, so let us ensure that this report is received very swiftly.

I would suggest that the present directors, if they can be persuaded, should still run the station in the meantime and that we at least give an undertaking to the staff that during this time nothing will be done that will damage their future prospects (Hear, hearP, because once again I repeat, it is not the employees of the station or the directors who have landed us in this particular situation in this Court this evening.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, could I have a point of clarification from the Chairman of the Finance Board? He says that this Court must not do anything to make the staff feel insecure. Would the chairman not agree that the statement of the chairman of the board of directors which says and I repeat — "That this company is insolvent and should cease trading" is a serious statement and should be taken seriously?

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I feel that that statement, of couse, in pure commercial terms would mean the total cessation of trading in commercial terms,

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T297 but of course it is not and never has been a purely commercial operation; it has received support and been operating on a deficit basis since its inception. That it is no different now in structural functioning from when it was initially formed, so that there is no actual commercial difference between this day and the day this company was formed.

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, on the constitution of the company, when the hon. member of Council, Mr. Lowey, raised a question some time ago about Manx Radio and in answer to certain questions, the Chairman of Executive Council said that this was a matter for the shareholders, and I see that the holders are both here this afternoon, the shareholders being the Government Secretary and the Government Treasurer. But I take it, Your Excellency — and here it is a constitutional issue — are they not the nominees of Tynwald? Are they not to receive their instructions from Tynwald or are we to say Tynwald was saying, almost to a man and a woman, that they would prefer that the T.T. races should be broadcast' on the medium band radio? Nobody was objecting to it, and yet they seem powerless to do anything about it because we had delegated the running of the station to private directors and our directors were responsible only to the shareholders, and the shareholders did not appear to be hearing what the Court was saying or, perhaps, they thought that they were only representing so far from a financial point of view.

One is torn with the idea that, if a great change — and I am not advocating great change — is to occur, the hon. member for East Douglas has got the only solution - that is, that the present company — and I am not criticising the directors — would be more than willing to lay down and some new form of direction appointed if a change was required. At the moment the directors can carry on, and the T.T. races are the greatest example of all. I want to endorse what has been said by the Chairman of the Tourist Board that many, many T.T. enthusiasts could not understand why one of the greatest assets we have in the Isle of Man for advertising the Isle of Man — that is, the running of the T.T. races — was not able to be heard this year in Lancashire, Yorkshire, North Wales, Ireland and so forth.

Mr. Cannan: Will it be heard next year?

The President of the Council: This is the point I believe, Your Excellency, that we are all desirous in Tynwald that that should occur. Now constitutionally, how can we bring this about, short of saying to the Chairman of Executive Council, "By the way, we are putting down a definite proposal and unless you do this we are going to move a vote of no confidence in you"? Have we to go to those limits? Or are the Executive Council or the Home Affairs Board going to listen to the voices of Tynwald and the voices of the people of the Isle of Man? Or are we to say we are powerless, we have given away, and "Heaven preserve us" — says the good doctor — "from reversing that in any way." We must give them a carte blanche that they must run the station as they wish or as somebody else wishes, whoever that somebody else may be, and they are going to soldier on and increase the deficiency, or is the Finance Board going to say, "You shall have so many pounds and no more"? It could well be that.

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T298 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

I believe that we must support this amendment, that requests the Home Affairs Board in consultation with Executive Council to examine the policy and the financing of Manx Radio. There are very good features, many excellent features since we have been discussing this: the morning news — we eagerly await it, to listen to the various things that are going on. We support the action too that they should broadcast the world views at the same time as the local news and I think everybody would support that. We would perhaps not go quite so far to hear about — is it Clwyd is the name? — the wretched name is ringing in my head! And we would not perhaps want to hear quite so much about this and about how their Members of Parliament are falling out with one another and what they are doing. We do not want perhaps so much about that ...

Mr. Delaney: Things are no different over there, Jack!

The President of the Council: But we do say there are many excellent things; there are many excellent musical programmes and many excellent news programmes and interviews taking place, and we subscribe to those. I think the Court has generally said too, Your Excellency, that perhaps the station does not need to have such extended hours; they are way into the night. This has been said time and time again. Most people are on television at that time, although there are people who have bad eyesight or something of that kind who do prefer sound radio. I think there are a few of these; there are the people in motorcars who like to hear perhaps the brass bands when they care coming home or where they go to each night and perhaps it might divert them a little bit ... But I do say we should support this amendment so that it could be investigated, and it may well be in order for Tynwald to get some kind of control over general policy, not over what they should actually put forward. It may well be that the Executive Council and the Home Affairs Board recommend a change of structure. If we are powerless under the present structure we must have a change, and I would support this amendment as proposed by the Chairman of Executive Council.

The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, just to clarify a point in fairness to the two shareholders, the Government Secretary and Government Treasurer. Very naturally they carry out the instructions of Executive Council and that they have been doing. I do not know how on earth they could possibly try and divide the views of Tynwald when Tynwald has not actually given any direction on the matter. On a week-to-week basis they naturally carry out the instructions of Executive Council and that they have done; there is no constitutional difficulty. The purpose of this debate is to give some indication to Executive Council, perhaps, as to the policy which Executive Council should adopt, but in day-to-day basis the control is perfectly clear; it is through Executive Council through the shareholders, and they act under company law in terms of that company.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, could I just clarify one statement, and that is that this board of directors was instructed by the Finance Board at the time when it was formed that it should pursue a purely commercial operation, and this Finance Board has continued that. The Chairman of Executive Council was then the Chairman of the Finance Board and can confirm that their only brief was to try

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T299 and make money, and they were not given any instructions as to the programme content.

Mr. MacDonald: Your Excellency, could I just ask the President of the Council to clarify one point? That is, is he saying to the Court we should accept that we will continue broadcasting to the United Kingdom fringe?

The President of the Council: I did not comment on that subject.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, you said you wanted people in England to listen to the T.T. races; you have got to broadcast them if they are to listen in England.

The President of the Council:lt does go to the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacDonald: At the moment it does, but that costs money.

The Governor: Hon. members I would just point out that it is important, I am told that we take the Energy item this session and so we will continue with that until it is completed.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I will not go over what other people have said. I think it is quite clear there are problems. I will be supporting the amendment, but I would like to say, as the things we are saying are being recorded and Executive Council and the Home Affairs Board will be reading those reports in Hansard, I want it recorded that I will in no way support any politicians in Tynwald directing or controlling Manx Radio here. I want that said so they will know they have got one person who will vote against that if it comes back.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, that was basically my point and I just wanted to say a few things. I think it would be disastrous and wrong for politicians to directly control any media whatsoever, whether it be papers or Manx Radio and the other point I wanted to make, Your Excellency, was that the brief before, we should not forget, was financial; what we are talking about now — and I shall be supporting the amendment — is to look at what the principles of how we want Manx Radio run and then we have to look at the financial side after.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, just one point that I would like some clarification on. The directors have advised the shareholders that the company is insolvent, and unless something happens it must cease trading. I am sure the Attorney-General will agree with me when I say that where a company continues trading in insolvency the directors have a total personal liability, and I am sure that that is not a situation which this Court would wish to continue. I imagine in those circumstances the directors would not be very enthusiastic about carrying on, so it seems to me essential that if we are at the annual general meeting to request the company to carry on and the directors to carry on in office they would have to be given an indemnity of some sort, or some financial arrangements will have to made.

The Governor: Do you wish to reply, hon. member?

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. T300 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983.

Mr. Cannan:Your Excellency, I first of all thank members for their support. Their views were many and varied, but I think that the message that has got over rather clearly is that we want a change at Manx Radio and that the regional policy is on the whole unacceptable.

There are just one or two points I would like to make. I was very sad that, in spite of my raising the matter last May, Executive Council did not direct the shareholders to make the necessary recommendations to the directors that the T.T. races were broadcast; it has caused a lot of aggravation, and that has been confirmed by the members of the Tourist Board, and I sincerely hope that the message will be taken on board that the T.T. races for this coming year must be broadcast on the medium wave. They are invaluable to the Isle of Man, and in the first place the Isle of Man itself has subsidised the races to be run.

I wonder what Dr. Mann meant when he said continuity. Does he mean we continue with the status quo, broadcasting on both medium and V.H.F. wavelengths and to continue as a regional radio station? I cannot believe that the taxpayers — after all this radio station belongs to the taxpayers although we are their representatives — will tolerate this continuity of the policy that we are pursuing at the moment.

I want to make one thing quite clear, Your Excellency, a matter raised by the hon. member of Council, Mr. MacDonald. I in no way wish there to be a Government-run propaganda station or Government interference in any way. All that I ask in putting this motion is there be a Government policy directive, that the radio station is run in the interests of the Isle of Man, its people and its events, and I would not support in any way whatsoever a politician running that radio station.

There is just one further point, and that was raised by the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney. Of course advertising must be accepted, but it must be accepted with discretion. I cannot imagine for a moment the Sunday Express carrying a large advertisement saying "Next Sunday remember to buy your Sunday Telegraph instead of this newspaper," because that was what was virtually happening with the advertisements coming over this summer, when holidaymakers were being recommended by the Island's radio station to go elsewhere.

Mr. Delaney: On a point of clarification, Your Excellency, the hon. member has quoted me. Let me quote him. The Companies Act — the directors of any company work for the interests of the company, and if they find income for that company . . . They do not have to take anything into consideration other than the benefit of the company and the shareholders. Therefore they do not matter who owns the paper; they will take the money first and worry about the consequences afterwards.

Mr. Cannan: Sir, the shareholders — I do not want to get into an altercation with the hon. member for East Douglas, but the shareholders are outside, sir.

So while I would like the resolution to be supported in full I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. Chairman of Executive Council, but with•one

Manx Radio — Broadcasting Policy — Amended Resolution Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T301

proviso: the chairman of the Home Affairs Board has said that they are not able to find the finance for a repeater station but that all programmes in future be on the medium wave, because if out of taxation the station is subsidised, then everybody on the Island should be able to take advantage of the programmes going out and, as I have repeated so many times, the excellent programmes, as the hon. President of the Council says, cannot be recorded, sir. When you speak on Mandate in the morning your audience is not a full audience. They would love to hear you, sir but they cannot. Your Excellency, I will leave it at that and I will go along with the amendment that it goes back to Executive Council and they report back in February.

The Governor: Hon. members, I will put the amendment standing in the Chairman of Executive Council's name. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. I now put that as a substantive motion, will those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

ENERGY — EIGHTH INTERIM REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PETROLEUM RESOURCES — SALE OF WATER AND GAS AUTHORITY UNDERTAKINGS — APPROVED

The Governor: We now turn to item 27. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy.

Mr. Kerruish: Your Excellency, I beg to move —

1 That the Eighth Interim Report of the Select Committee on Energy be received.

2 That Tynwald appoint an Advisory Commission on Petroleum Resources in accordance with Recommendation 7.1(a) of the Eighth Interim Report.

3 That the Water and Gas Authority be authorised —

(a) to sell its town gas undertakings to Calor Manx Gas Limited for the sum of £350,000 on the terms set out in paragraph 5.5 of the Eighth Interim Report; and

(b) in accordance with section 2 of the Isle of Man Loans Act 1974 to convey land appertaining to the two gas undertakings which has a value in excess of £25,000 to Calor Manx Gas Limited.

In view of the fact that this is the first report made by the Energy Committee since the General Election in 1981 the committee believe it is appropriate to include in their report a brief reference to some of the many matters which have been considered by the committee since it was constituted. The availability of adequate supplies of various sources of energy is of great importance to all sections of the community, and it will be seen from the synopsis in the report that the committee

Energy — Eighth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Appointment of Advisory Commission on Petroleum Resources — Sale of Water and Gas Authority Undertakings — Approved. T302 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. has been actively concerned with a wide range of subjects which fall within their remit. Of paramount importance has been the determination of a long-term policy regarding the generation and supply of the Island's electricity requirements, and it was a source of satisfaction to the committee when Tynwald accepted the principle that an all-Island electricity authority should be established, as we look forward to the formulation of a policy by the new authority directed towards providing the Island with adequate supplies of electricity at reasonable prices.

In the present report two specific recommendations are made. The first concerns the situation which will arise with the extension of the Island's territorial waters. Tynwald has for long expressed the view that this is a step which must be taken in the overall interests of the Island, and I know members were heartened by the statement made by Your Excellency in June 1981 and which is referred to in paragraph 4 (1) of our report. Despite the fact that little progress has been made it must remain one of our top priorities, and the committee has been giving consideration to the duty which will fall upon Government to control and exploit the possible benefits which may arise from the extended territorial waters .

Interest has already been shown in the possible exploration of the area which would fall within the Island's extended limits, and drillings have taken place within one licence block which would fall within our extended territory. It is clear that very careful consideration must be given as to how any extended area is to be controlled. We appreciate that at present the Forestry Board has a responsibility for licensing mineral exploration and exploitation, but we believe that the board will accept that they have not at their disposal adequate resources to deal with this very complex and important Government activity.

A wide range of subjects has to be considered in connection with any proposed regime: licence fees, royalties, taxation are some of the matters which we involve in the formulation of policy. The committee are firmly of the opinion that Govern- ment should be well prepared in advance of any extended responsibilities, and recommend the setting up of an advisory committee on controlling resources to consider the most appropriate way of dealing with the potential resources and the most suitable agency of Government to undertake continuing responsibility for this area of activity.

Hon. members will note that we recommend that the commission should consist of the Chairman of Executive Council, the Chairman of Finance Board and three other persons with experience of the various aspects of the subject of oil exploration, oil taxation and oil business management. It is important that it be made clear that we expect our territorial waters to be extended and that we are ready to accept the responsibilities which such a situation would involve and are determined to take steps in the furtherance of the policy which would ensure the maximum benefit accruing to the Island of any resources within our extended territory.

The committee's second recommendation is that the Water and Gas Authority be authorised to sell its town gas undertakings to the Calor Gas Company on the

Energy — Eighth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Appointment of Advisory Commission on Petroleum Resources — Sale of Water and Gas Authority Undertakings — Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T303 terms set out in the report. The responsibility for the gas undertakings was taken over by the Government with a view to ensuring the continuation of supplies to the various communities concerned at a time when the companies which then owned them were encountering difficulties. Considerable sums have been spent by Govern- ment in refurbishing the undertakings, but despite the fact that their charges tend to be higher than those of the other two gas companies the Government undertaking in recent years has been run at a loss.

The Calor Company's desire to acquire the Government undertakings is based on the belief that ownership of them along with their present subsidiary in the Island, the Ramsey Gas Company, would enable them to have a more effective organisation on the Island, and their objective would be to make the enterprise very efficient and raise the level of service wherever possible.

After meetings with the company and discussing the matter with the Gas Committee of the Water and Gas Authority, the committee and the authority have come to the conclusion that the implementation of the proposal would be in the interest of both Government and consumers in the areas concerned. In our report, Your Excellency, we point out that the undertakings would become part of a substantial international company who, whilst undertaking to continue to supply gas to all the area at present supplied by the Water and Gas Authority, have made it clear that their objective would be to extend its gas selling activities in the Island. It is obvious that the amalgamation of two smaller units will lead to a more competitive situation which should be of benefit to the consumer. From a Govern- ment standpoint, there appears to be little prospect of their undertakings being profitable. There is the possibility of further capital expenditure being required, and as a matter of principle there is no need for Government to continue to provide a service of this nature, which private enterprise is willing to provide at competitive prices.

The financial considerations involved are set out in paragraph 5.6(i) incorrectly stated on the Agenda as paragraph 5.5, and I crave the indulgence of the Court in altering that particular reference. Calor Gas will pay to the Isle of Man Government £350,000 for the fixed assets and working capital of the gas undertakings of the Water and Gas Authority; £200,000 will be paid immediately and the remaining £150,000 will be repaid with the amount each year that trading profits from the gas undertakings exceed a return of investment to Calor Gas of 20 per cent. But, notwithstanding, Calor will undertake to repay a minimum of £30,000 per annum between year four to year eight inclusive, from the date of completion subject to a minimum payment in any one year of £50,000. I should also make it clear that in the following paragraph it states that no interest will be payable on the outstanding amount.

These proposed terms do not fully recoup the expenditure by Government over the years, but in view of the trading results, it would be unrealistic to expect to do so. During the period when any part of the part of the purchase price is outstanding, Government will have the opportunity of appointing a representative on the board of the company administering the undertaking, which it is proposed

Energy — Eighth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Appointment of Advisory Commission on Petroleum Resources — Sale of Water and Gas Authority Undertakings — Approved. T304 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. to call Calor (Manx) Gas Limited. This representative would be elected by Tynwald and would have a clear right to represent Government interests rather than those of the company.

An important consideration in any proposal such as this is the position of the employees of the undertakings, and the committee and the Water and Gas Authority have been concerned that their interests should be properly protected. It has been agreed and would be clearly laid down that, as stated in our report, the purchaser will undertake that all the existing staff, ten in number, will be offered a position with the new company with terms no less favourable than at present enjoyed. They will be given the option to transfer or preserve their Government pension rights. We believe that these provisions are fair and reasonable and adequately protect the interests of those concerned. The members of the committee are firmly of the opinion that both their recommendations are well worthy of support of this honourable Court. I beg to move.

Mr. Payne: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I do not wish to appear a spectre at the feast and I do not certainly stand up in this Court with an ideology block against privatisation, because that really in effect is what we are doing in this particular resolution. The one thing we have learnt in the Isle of Man is not to get hung up on words. We are looking — I am quite sure the committee is looking — to try and get a good deal for the Isle of Man Government and the consumers of gas, the production and services, and the historical story unfolds of why the Government became involved in the industry in the first place shows we were only interested not, if you like, in nationalising it, but to provide a service that was required at the time — still required now.

There are one or two things which I think that the report — I will be supporting the report at the end of the day — I find by the omission . . . I am suspicious by nature, and when I read about this historical spending in the undertaking and the historical cost, I am more interested in, when the chairman of the committee says that the money that we will recoup in the sale price does not actually meet what we have spent on the undertaking, just what the shortfall is, because we have not had any actual figures. Have we spent, in the last 10 years on the undertaking since we took it over, £1 million and are getting £350,000 back, or are we talking of a lesser sum? What are the actual figures? I would have thought that perhaps it might very well have been better to have had the actual figures presented to the Court when asking for us to accept £350,000 for the assets, because that is what we are selling, I take it is not good will we are selling, sir; it is actual assets, building, land and plant.

That is the first think I would like a point on, and I would also say that I am suspicious on behalf of the consumer. Perhaps that is me being a former Chairman of the Consumer Council. In gas, and in particular bottled gas, the consumer — and I am a consumer, so I had better declare my interest — of bottled gas, they have had a pretty raw deal and are still getting a pretty raw deal and so, when I read that

when we amalgamate the two smaller undertakings it would hopefully in turn lead to better prices for the consumer than can be offered at present, I say "Amen" to that — and I note the word "hopefully." However, I think the interest of the consumer ought to be paramount.

Finally, Your Excellency, I would just ask has the Select Committee looking into this thought of the possibility of gas being found in or around the Isle of Man, and then how it would be exploited? If the possibility is there — and I am led to believe that the possibility is more germane, more possible today than it has been for a long time — I just wonder whether we are getting rid of the undertaking at the right time.

I think, Your Excellency, those are my three points. I want to point out about the cost, the historical cost, how much we have spent on the undertaking since we have had it; secondly I would like an assurance that the consumer is going to be taken into consideration, and thirdly, have they considered the possibility of gas being found and then how that could be exploited on the Isle of Man, again to the benefit of the consumer?

Mr. Faragher: Your Excellency, just briefly, if I could follow the hon. member for Council, Mr. Lowey, there are one or two points on this which I would like to be enlightened upon. I would really like to know how great have been these losses to the Manx Government since Government has been running Manx Gas, and when the mover suggests that the purchase will endeavour to make the service more efficient and profitable and improve the service to the customers, I wonder could not Manx Gas have been taking these measures themselves?

A Member: No.

Mr. Faragher: I am rather concerned that we will be creating another monopoly on the Island — that is, a monopoly outside Douglas — for the supply of mains gas; at the moment we do not have such a monopoly. And I am far from happy with the details of the finance on this deal. I wish anybody else could buy a business on the terms as favourable as these. We are quoting a price of £350,000, which is a distortion of the truth. We are going to have £200,000 on the table and the remaining £150,000 — you might not see the last payment on that until the end of year eight. Anybody with half a brain can see that a £50,000 payment in year eight is not going to be worth anything like £50,000 today, so we should not even be mentioning the figure of £350,000 for this undertaking because it is just a distortion of the truth. There will be no interest payable — what a gift we are handing out to somebody, saying that the rate of their repayment will depend on how much profit in excess of 20 per cent. they are going to make on this undertaking, when all we can do is make a loss on it!

I am rather concerned with the speed of the decision that we are called upon to make and the lack of information that has been made available to members on which to base that decision, and I believe that the Manx Government has got a vested national interest in the supply of energy to the Isle of Man, and I would

Energy — Eighth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Appointment of Advisory Commission on Petroleum Resources — Sale of Water and Gas Authority Undertakings — Approved. T306 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. agree with the comments made by Mr. Lowey when he said "What is going to be the situation if perhaps we find there is a source of natural gas freely available?" I am afraid that, on the information supplied to me, that I do not feel qualified to make such a decision as this, and I will probably be voting against this.

Mr. Moore: Your Excellency, just to get some of the history correct with regard to this thing, I am Chairman of the Isle of Man Gas and Water Undertaking, and we have got to get down to some basic policies with regard to this particular undertaking. What we are talking about here is something that we took over between 1967 and 1972, of undertakings which are losing money hand over fist and were going out of circulation to the detriment of the consumers in the Isle of Man — I am speaking particularly about Peel, Castletown and Port Erin, the very areas represented by my colleagues. We took them over, not to make a profit on gas; we took them over to safeguard consumers, and it was a very expensive exercise. The money that we spent in just sustaining supplies to the consumers was considerable. We have no chance of getting that money back. What we are talking about now is a loss-making situation which we would be very pleased to get rid of, and we were delighted when one of the firms in the Island, established in Ramsey, wanted to extend the boundaries of their supply and were prepared to take over our consumers with the assurances that they gave us. The speed of this thing was at the first meeting we had with Calor Gas people last March, and we have had meetings with them every month since last March with regard to this particular exercise, trying to get the best terms for Government. Nobody in his right mind would suggest for one moment that I was the man to go along and deal with the financial implications of a deal of this sort, so we obviously, even as far as the Energy Committee, went to great pains to get all the Treasury advice as to whether we were getting the right end of the deal on the prices quoted. We would not possibly take this back to the Gas Authority if we were told by Treasury "This is no go, you will get a far better deal than this."

On the other question which was raised, of a monopoly, we had no approach whatsoever from Douglas Gas Company. We have three organisations in the Isle of Man. When Calor Gas came forward with an offer which appeared to be acceptable to get the thing off our backs, we said that if we are not now getting a position of a monopoly in the Island, these are people who are running very successfully in Ramsey, they have given us the assurances we want, our 10 members of staff have been safeguarded, our consumers have been safeguarded, if anything they will get a better deal from them than they get from us, "because anybody looking at the figures which are quoted will see that we are even more expensive than Ramsey Gas, so the consumers were the main concern, the staff were a basic concern that I wanted — give me the guarantees that these people will be employed. The figures that we can go back on — I mean, we can talk about history, we can talk about transport and say "How much will you get for transport if a private enterprise takes it over, and how much have you spent?" A service to the consumer at that day, in order to safeguard him, cost us, even in 1972, £251,000 put into the undertaking by Government of which £158,000 was written off. If somebody is suggesting that money which was written off in that period should be added on to the price now, they must be living in cloud cuckoo land. What we are talking about is, what

is an economic price for what we are handing over at present? We went along, saying, "Please, Treasury, will you look at the homework which has been provided;" they were in all the discussions with Mr. Mitchell and Mr Sayer, the local representative, and the agreement that we came to, Finance Board said, "This is the best you will get" — and it was their advice and the advice of the Energy Committee supported by my own authority — "By all means, get rid of it." This is the situation and it is all very well members of Tynwald coming along and saying, "Yes, you have got something there that cost you £'/2 million and you are only going to accept £300,000 for it." If it is losing money, gentlemen, the deficit this year in the gas part of our undertaking, we do not want to know how much it cost us in the years gone by or how much we have written off; what is the commercial price for it at present? Treasury tells us this is an acceptable amount — they have to deal with the finances of it — and were only too happy to accept the offer on the very strict terms which are written into this agreement. There might be a hiccup or two yet; what is hoped is that the agreement already gone into in very great detail in the hands of both our own lawyers and their lawyers is at the point of being signed, it will not be signed by me until I have Treasury approval that these are the terms which are contained in this resolution, and if it is acceptable to Treasury and to this hon. Court, we will be able to sign this agreement in November of this year. If we want to defer it possibly a bit further, that is fine, but I think the Treasury will tell you that if you want to defer it, it is going to cost you more money at the end of the day.

The Acting-Speaker: Your Excellency, I am concerned about the staff. We have heard it said that they will be assured of no less favourable conditions than at present. I would like to know whether this includes salary and status for everyone; it has been suggested to me that this is not so. Another point that I query is, how long are they guaranteed employment? It is all very well taking them over and saying, "You will be taken over on no less favourable terms," but if somebody changes their mind six months later, it is not much good to the staff, so I am just wondering how well this is tied up for the staff and whether it is in writing.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I must say that I have had doubts, like the hon. member for Rushen, and my concern is similar to his over how much money . . . And I have done some work; the firm I used to work for when the gas undertaking was first taken over — I know how much money was pumped in; I saw what was pumped in to get the gas going again and to protect what we had. One of the other things is that I am all for the consumer being looked after; I do not think there is any doubt about that. The consumers of Manx Gas have been ripped off for a long time.

I think that one thing we must do, Your Excellency, is to try and protect that, but this guarantee of employment which Mr. Speaker has just spoken about — I looked at that, Your Excellency, and I have certainly heard that there could be problems. For instance you can guarantee, as Mr. Speaker said, anybody employment, but if times change and you did not make quite as much money as you expected, you can then pay off the staff — no problem. I also believe that members of the staff who are civil servants were told there was no chance of a job within the

Civil Service; they had to take what they were given and that was it, I would like to know if that is so, because I believe that is so.

I think these are things this hon. Court would like to know and should know, and the price — the best you will get. I wonder if Treasury, looking at this, are looking at how much money it is going to save Government and not how good the price is. How much is it going to save? And realising it is a commercial board of Tynwald and therefore the consumer surely has to pay what it costs to borrow, therefore that borrowing is going through Government, I am somewhat concerned with the recommendation in this report, Your Excellency, and I wait to hear the answers.

Mrs. Christian: Your Excellency, comment on this item in the debate has centred largely on section (b) of the recommendations. However, I think it is important that we do not allow section (a) to pass without any comment. This is a fairly significant recommendation that they are making, and I think that we ought to congratulate the Energy Committee in taking action before the event for once, in that they are making a recommendation which will establish, in receiving the report, their view that we should establish an advisory commission. It is, I think, Your Excellency, important that we acknowledge that this is a very important step to take.

With regard to the Water and Gas Authority, there is one small point that I would like to be clarified in that, when in the past we have had Government nominees on boards, we have been told that those directors cannot act to represent the Government where that is at variance with the objectives of the company. Here we are being quite clearly told that this nominee will have a clear right to represent Government interests rather than the interests of the company, and this is in conflict, I think, with what we have been told in the past. Could we have some direction as to whether or not it is in fact possible for a Government nominee to represent Government's interest rather than the interests of the company?

Mr. Cain: Very briefly, Your Excellency, I am delighted to hear the comments of the hon. member for Ayre, who has just resumed her seat. I believe myself in the report that by far the most significant and important recommendation of this report relates to the Advisory Commission on Petroleum Resources. I really think that the way the debate has gone has demonstrated the principle enunciated in Parkinson's Law: that a debate on whether to build a nuclear power station will go through in 30 seconds, and when it comes to a debate on the bicycle shed for the workforce, it takes six hours! I think that the sale of the undertaking to Calor Gas, such as it recommended, is the best possible terms that we are going to get, and I have no doubt whatsoever that in the context of the benefits to consumers and the economic interests of the Island, it is the best possible deal that we can get and we should be very grateful indeed that Calor Gas are in fact agreeing to take it off us. (Interruptions). I am proud to be a consumer of Ramsey Gas, and I hope very much that the rest of the Island will enjoy the same service as we get in Ramsey. (Hear, hear).

So far as the Petroleum Resources Advisory Commission is concerned, I think that the indications are, as the hon. member of Council, Mr. Lowey suggested, that there are substantial gas resources in our waters and that we would be very foolish indeed if we were not to take immediately the necessary steps to obtain the best possible advice on how to cope with the problems of extracting it, licensing, royalties, taxation and so forth. This is a highly complex area which has exercised many governments considerably larger than ours, and I think it is of vital importance that we get on with this as quickly as possible. Certainly, I understand that the United Kingdom have expressed reservations as to our ability to handle this sort of problem, and I think the way in which the report has made this recommendation should go a long way to demonstrate to the United Kingdom Govern- ment that we are fully alive to the consequences of the exploration for gas in our waters and we know exactly what we are going to do and are perfectly capable of handling it.

The Attorney-General: Your Excellency, it might be useful if I just comment on the point raised by the hon. member, Mrs. Christian. I also was a bit unhappy about the wording in the report in paragraph 5.6(iii); it is quite clear that a director appointed by a particular shareholder is there in a general sense to represent that particular shareholder. I do not think there is any objection about that.

I was and, I must say, I am a little unhappy about the wording "Rather than the interests of the company" because I cannot quite see how in fact a director can act against the interests of the company. However, I think it is a matter of wording. I think we understand that a company director does have responsibilities to the company as a whole; he certainly cannot act against the interest of the company which would be a most extraordinary situation, but nevertheless a director is enabled to represent the interests of particular shareholders while representing at the same time the interests of the company as a whole. I agree, Your Excellency, I think the wording there is not entirely satisfactory.

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, I rise to support my chairman in recommending this Court that we should allow the sale to go through as quickly as possible. The remarks which have been made by the chairman really do not need to be repeated and were endorsed by the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Cain. But I am concerned, as is the hon. member, Mr. Acting-Speaker, about the employees, and perhaps it would help if I read a letter that the authority sent to all its employees on that particular subject — I will just choose the part relating to their employment. "Calor Gas Ltd., Proposed Purchases, have indicated that on the proposed vesting date, the 1st of November, 1983, all staff will continue to be employed on existing terms but that inevitably over a period a degree of harmonisation with Calor employees in the Ramsey business will take place. However, any harmonisation of this kind must take into account Calor's legal commitments in the proposed agreement that terms of employment of all existing staff will be no less favourable. It is a further condition of the sale that Government will have a representative on the board of the new undertaking for such a period as Government has any outstanding financial interest in the new company. This Government representative

will be in a position to ensure that the interests of the employees are properly safeguarded. As to pension arrangements, all employees will be given an option as to whether they would wish to have their benefits under the Government schemes preserved, or have their service with Government transferred to Calor Pension Scheme. The detailed position of each employee is being calculated, and when this is done, each will be given the opportunity to take any advice he may consider desirable on the basis of the figures before making a decision. This decision need not be made in haste although it is obviously desirable not to delay." I hope that has helped in some way, Your Excellency.

Mr. Kerruish: Your Excellency, I think my hon. friend, the Chairman of the Water and Gas Authority, has covered quite a number of points hon. members have queried. As he rightly said, there is a long history to this water and gas undertakings, and it has had a very chequered career.

As far as the question posed by the hon. member for Council, Mr. Lowey, is concerned, I am not in a position to give him all the money that has been involved by Government. I think quite a lot has been ploughed in here. For a time the undertakings were under the Government Treasurer and then by a committee of Tynwald, and even at the point when it was taken over by the authority the Finance Board and Tynwald agreed to write off £118,000 at that particular point in time, and there could have been other subventions in the way of interest-free loans that could have helped them, so I would not for one moment claim to be able to give the hon. member any definitive answer, but I will be quite frank and read from a paper I received recently from the Treasury dated June 1981, and it says: "The latest available balance sheet for the gas undertaking shows that at 31st March 1982 its indebtedness to Government totalled £467,807." So there obviously is a considerable shortfall but, as the hon. member himself appreciated, this is an outfit that would be losing money, and I think, as the hon. member for Ramsey said, we have considered ourselves — and this is the view of the committee — supported very strongly by the Treasury who have been our financial consultants in this particular regard, we felt we were getting the best of a possible deal under the present circumstances in view of the fact that, to be quite frank, the prospect for the undertakings becoming profitable or conferring any benefit to the Government was very remote indeed.

If there is any doubt about the benefits that are likely to accrue to Government, in my view there is no doubt whatsoever about the benefits that are likely to be conferred on to the consumer. We have to face the fact that the Government undertakings have been working at a disadvantage, insofar that they had to take all the supplies via two other companies. Initially all supplies come into the Island via Kosangas, with which the Douglas Gas Company are associated; the supplies that are brought for the Government gas undertakings — and I hope the hon. chairman can confirm this with a nod — are even transported by the Ramsey Gas Works Company to the Government undertakings, so it is small wonder that, in view of those factors and also that they are the smallest undertaking in the Island, they have been very uncompetitive as far as prices are concerned. We feel that the purchasing company, Calor Gas Company, is a very large outfit indeed, a very

prosperous company and I am satisfied that they are intent on expanding their operations in the Isle of Man, and I feel they will be the first to appreciate that in order to expand their sales they have got to bring the prices of the gas supplied by what are at present the Government undertakings down to a more competitive level, but that is their business.

We feel that, having a company with financial muscle and certainly expertise in this field and lots of back-up, we have got someone here who will really constitute in the Island a very competitive situation as far as the supply of gas is concerned. This is the thinking of the committee; we do not want to create monopolies here, I am quite certain. In Douglas we have a very efficient, and I think a very progressive, gas company. I think here, with the creation of the combined operation of Calor, the Ramsey Gas Works Company and the Government undertakings, we would have another man-sized outfit here, which I think beyond all shadow of a doubt would as far as service is concerned and, I hope, as far as price is concerned, will definitely be beneficial to the consumer in those areas.

The committee are mindful of the possibility of gas being found within our extended territorial waters, hence part one of the resolution. As to what would actually happen if we were fortunate enough to discover gas within our territorial waters, it is something very much down the line, but the first part of our recommendations certainly impinges on this and it is designed to ensure that when that point does arise, the Government generally and, if possible, consumers within the Island will certainly benefit from that event.

The hon. member for Rushen enquired as to losses. He seemed to think this was a wonderful buy — I am glad to see that he is shaking his head now — I am afraid very few commercially minded individuals would take that view. The losses that I have been furnished with — there were some years when they made profits - but Mr. Faragher asked about losses, and in the Profit and Revenue Account the profit and loss situation shows in the year 1980/81 a £21,967 deficit; 1981/82, £11,201; 1982/83, an estimated deficit of £19,975. He did make the point that he felt we were creating a monopoly. I feel exactly the opposite situation is likely to be created by the implementation of these recommendations. He did refer to the amount of money that was involved, and I hope that the reply given to his hon. colleague, Mr. Lowey, will meet him on that point. Mr. Moore replied to many of the points.

I think, in replying to the hon. Mr. Acting-Speaker, who was concerned about the staff, let me say that as far as we are concerned, I have been very much struck, as a member of this committee, by the concern of the Chairman of the Water and Gas Authority that the position of the employees should be one of our top priorities. The present Chairman of the Water and Gas Authority and my colleague Mr. Moore I think has been involved in local government or Central Government for a period of no less than 40 years, I think I am correct in saying, and during the whole of that period he could be regarded as a man who has certainly looked after the interests of the workers, and I do not for one moment believe that he would set his hand to an agreement unless he was fully satisfied as far as the employees of

Energy — Eighth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Appointment of Advisory Commission on Petroleum Resources — Sale of Water and Gas Authority Undertakings — Approved. T312 TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. the undertaking were concerned every possible step had been taken to ensure that their interests are properly taken care of, and I think that in the undertaking that has been given by the company which will be written, I presume, into the agreement the best possible terms will be arrived at with the employees concerned. I feel on my own part that there would be better prospects for the staff with a larger undertaking like this than there would be with the Government gas undertakings as at present constituted who, at best, are likely to go limping along for a very long time. The possibilities of expanding their activities, I think, are extremely remote. I would feel that the staff — and they have been very highly spoken of by the Chairman of the authority — will look forward to being engaged in a larger and more progressive organisation, and I think every possible step has been taken to ensure that their positions should be safeguarded.

Mr. Brown, the hon. member for Castletown, pleaded the possibility of consumers and I think I have touched upon that point.

As far as the hon. member for Ayre is concerned, Mrs. Christian, like my hon. colleague, Mr. Cain, I regard the first part of our resolution as being extremely important; although our territorial waters have not yet been extended I firmly take the view that it is only a matter of time, but I think it is very clear that we should show to the outside world that we are looking forward to this, anticipating this event and are determined to see that we are well prepared to control the situation when that point arrives, but in order to do so we have got to move now, and I sincerely hope this will be regarded by every member of the Court as being a very important step on the part of the Government.

I will accept, touching on the hon. member Mrs. Christian's point, that the situation as far as nominees for the Government under the board of directors is concerned is somewhat unusual, but this is a situation that has been accepted by the purchasing company, that whilst no doubt there will be a loyalty to the new company by the individual concerned, he will certainly have latitude with regard to looking after the interests of Government and particularly the interests of employees who were formerly employed by Government.

I thank my hon. colleague, Mr. Cain, for his support, the learned Attorney for his comments and the hon. member Mr. Payne for his clarification as far as the letter which has been sent to the staff by the hon. Chairman of the Authority. I would repeat, sir, that those are the committee's recommendations and are well worthy of support from this hon. Court, and I sincerely hope they will receive it.

The Governor: Hon. members, what I will do is take this item in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3(a) and (b). Paragraph 1, those in favour please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. Paragraph 3(a), those in favour please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. (Mr. Brown wished to be recorded against). Paragraph 3(b) Those in favour please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The motion carries.

Hon. members, I apologise that this Agenda has taken such a long time to go through, but we have had some very important and lengthy debates in it. We have

Energy — Eighth Interim Report of the Select Committee — Appointment of Advisory Commission on Petroleum Resources — Sale of Water and Gas Authority Undertakings — Approved. TYNWALD COURT, 25th OCTOBER, 1983. T313 spent quite a lot of time amongst the sheep and we have got lost in a churchyard (Laughter), and I apologise to those movers whose motions have not been taken. I hope this is not an inconvenience to them, those items, namely 29, 30, 35 and 37, will be transferred to the next Agenda. That concludes our business, hon. members. The Council will now withdraw and leave the Keys to transact such business as Mr. Speaker may place before them.

The Council withdrew.

HOUSE OF KEYS

The Acting-Speaker: Hon. members, the House will stand adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 1st November, in our own Chamber. Thank you.

The House adjourned.

CORRIGENDUM

Page T71 (October 18th, 1983), line 20, for "delegation" please read "derogation."

House of Keys Corrigendum.