Printed (by Authority) by The Copy Shop Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSE OF KEYS

Douglas, Tuesday 23rd January 2001 at 10.00 a.m.

Present: The memorandum states: 'It was always the The Speaker (Hon J D Q Carman) (Michael); department's intention to make the transition of disability Mr L I Singer and Hon AR Bell (Ramsey); Mr R E Quine working allowance, that is DWA, for people with a mental OBE (Ayre); Mrs H Hannan (Peel); Hon W A Gilbey disability, resident in the department's community homes, (Glenfaba); Hon S C Rodan (Garff); Hon D North as easy as possible. All seven residents involved had their (Middle); Mr P Karran, Hon R K Corkill and total income maintained at the same level as that when the Mr G T Cannell (Onchan); Messrs J R Houghton and disability working allowance was received, up to and R W Henderson (Douglas North); Hon D C Cretney and including 2nd October 2000. However, payments to achieve Mr AC Duggan (Douglas South); Mr R P Braidwood and this were authorised by the department's payrolls and not Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Mr J P Shimmin and Hon by way of the disability working allowance. The minimum AF Downie (Douglas West); Hon J ABrown (Castletown); weekly income of the residents now stands at f87.20 and Hon D J Gelling (Malew and Santon); Sir Miles Walker the department meets all the board and accommodation CBE LLD (hc) and Mrs P M Crowe and Mr J Rimington costs of the residents. I am happy to address the members'oncerns (Rushen); with Prof T StJ N Bates, Secretary of the House. in what I hope is a positive process by the

department.'he

Speaker: A supplementary, Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I am The Speaker took the prayers. pleased that the member for Social Security has now made it publicly clear that the out of DWA allowance Disability Working Allowance —Phasing Out phasing — for people with learning disabilities is not a complete cut. Question by Mr Henderson The impact as such has been considerably softened and this long running issue seems finally to be resolved, sir. The Speaker: The hon. member for North Douglas, Mr Henderson, to ask the member for Health and Social The Speaker: Mr Rimington to reply. Security.

Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel there is Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to no need for a in this situation. t ask the member for Health and Social Security: reply The Speaker: Thank What action has been done to honour your you. undertaking at the June 2000 sitting of Tynwald to ask the social servi ces division ofyour department to examine ways of phasing out the disability working allowance for those Nobles Hospital —Vacancies in Radiology with a mental disability resident in your department's Department —Waiting Lists community homes, and substituting compensatory financia —Question by Mr Henderson support? The Speaker: Question number 2, the hon. member The Speaker: The member for Health and Social for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. Security, Mr Rimington. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ask the member for Health and Social Security: information was provided to members of Tynwald by the Minister for Health and Social Security in a memorandum (1) What vacant posts are there in the Radiology dated 20th September 2000. That is during the summer Department at Noble's Hospital; recess. I am happy to provide it again in this House as a matter of public record. (2) how long has each post been vacant;

Disability Working Allowance —Phasing Out —Question by Mr Henderson Noble's Hospital —Vacancies in Radiology Department —Waiting Lists —Question by Mr Henderson K242 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

(3) what measures have been taken to fill the posts, and Crime Detection Rate —Question by Mr Houghton for Written Answer (4) what effect have the vacancies had on: Question 3 (a) waiting lists; and The hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, to (b) hours worked by the existing staff? ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

The Speaker: The member for Health and Social In view of the average reduction of 17 per cent in the Security to reply, Mr Karran. crime rate, reported by the Chief Constable-

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I can advise the hon. (1) what was the corresponding detection rate during member that, with effect from yesterday, there are no the same period; and vacancies in the hospital's radiology department. (2) how does this compare with the detection rate for The Speaker: A supplementary, Mr Henderson. each of the previous four years?

Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am very Answer pleased with the member's new statement and the position of the department. Can he confirm, however that up until The detection rate for the period 1st April to 31st yesterday, there were waiting lists for non-urgent X-ray December 2000 was 31.4 per cent. This compares with appointments for anything up to four weeks? Will he detection rates for the previous four years as follows: confirm that these new appointments to the X-ray department will lessen the waiting lists? 1996 50.98 per cent

The Speaker: Mr Karran to reply. 1997 52.04 per cent

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, obviously there are 1998 46.19 per cent more staff there and there will be more throughput, but I ask what this question will have achieved. 1999 41.40 per cent

Detection rate is lower than might have been expected The Speaker: Afinal supplementary, Mr Henderson. because all the detective officers of the force were engaged on major incidents from April through to October 2000. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the hon. These include a murder, a manslaughter, a suspicious death member is aware, I have expressed concerns over the x- and the loss of the Solway Harvester. Detection rate on all ray department and times public waiting and was informed major incidents is 100 per cent, but the unavailability of his department these vacancies. am has by of I pleased it the detectives to investigate volume crime for such a been filled, but could he reassure please the people of the lengthy period is having a predictable influence on the Isle of Man that the waiting times will now come down? overall detection rate.

The Speaker: Mr Karran to reply. In addition, the force has made a deliberate and sustained attempt to encourage the public to report all crime, no Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, it is obvious to this matter how minor. This factor alone which has resulted in House, we want to make sure that the waiting times, like an increase in the number of very minor, difficult to detect the other 23 members in this hon. House, are down to a crimes, now recorded will introduce an element into the reasonable level. (AMember: Hear, hear.) I am sure that statistics which would automatically lead to a decrease in that will be the case. the detection rates when compared with previous years. The fact of the matter is that we have to realise that many places have problems with recruiting. One of the However, the detection rate is improving steadily and things that I would like to say about my staff, who are by the end of the year (31st March 2001) should have always under attack, is that the throughput with which they improved although a detection rate of 31.4 per cent is still have to deal has actually increased year on year as far as credible in the difficult year which the force has this is concerned. It is important that we do not forget that experienced and compares very well with forces in the our staff work hard in the health services. United Kingdom.

Members: Hear, hear. Papers Laid Before the House The Speaker: Hon. members, that is the end of oral questions. Question number 3 is for written answer and is The Speaker: Now, before calling on the Secretary of on your desks. the House to lay papers, I advise you that the petition of

Crime Detection Rate —Question by Mr Houghton for Written Answer Papers Laid Before the House HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K243

Halifax PLC complies with standing orders. I call upon The Speaker: Mr Karran. the Secretary to lay papers. Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I have no problems The Secretary: I lay before the House: The petition of with this Bill or the proposals, but the only thing I would Halifax PLC. make quite clear is that I will not be very happy if I find that this goes up the agenda paper and the likes of the minimum wage and the things that affect real people stay Halifax International Bill— down at the bottom of the paper. Leave to Introduce Granted I am fully supportive of trying to keep the economy buoyant in the Isle of Man and it is great that we have the first generation for, more than likely, a hundred-odd years The Speaker: Sir Miles Walker. where our children can leave school and pick and choose the careers and job opportunities they want. There is, Sir Miles Walker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to however a responsibility for this House to make sure that move: other things such as social legislation are not allowed to be thrown down the list. It concerns me that when I first That under standing order 212, on the petition of the promoters, Halifax PLC, the petitioner having certified came into this hon. House, I used to complain bitterly in the required compliance with standing order 191, leave respect of agriculture; if you had four legs and a woolly be given to introduce the Halifax International Bill. coat, you were pampered, but if you had two legs and no coat, you were ignored. 'in Mr Speaker, hon. members, I beg to move that leave be I do not want to see a situation where the new crowd's granted to introduce a Halifax International Bill to allow the finance sector and the ordinary workers are a poor for the restructuring of the Isle of Man operations of Halifax second again. I hope that the hon. member realises that the International (Isle of Man) Limited and Halifax Bill has got to take its turn in the parliamentary procedures International Limited. so that the likes of the minimum wage and things like that Halifax International (Isle of Man) Limited is an Isle of are not pushed back to the bottom of the agenda. It should Man company which is licensed by the Isle of Man not get forward at the expense of ensuring that those few Financial Supervision Commission to conduct business in people at the bottom end can also enjoy some of the and from the Island. Halifax International Limited is a prosperity of our present economy. company incorporated in Jersey which is shortly to be licensed to carry on banking business through a branch in The Speaker: Anybody else? I call upon Sir Miles the Isle of Man and will be similarly regulated by the Walker to reply. commission. Both companies are subsidiaries of Halifax PLC, which Sir Miles Walker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hear what would now like to rationalise its operations in the Isle of the hon. member has to say, sir. Looking back through my Man and the Channel Islands by transferring and fusing rose-tinted spectacles, I could only wish that as much the undertaking of the Manx company to and with that of attention was paid now to the agricultural industry as in the Jersey company. the days that the hon. member is talking about. The Bill is since is the most effective proposed it legal However, my understanding is that as far as the order technique of effecting the transfer and fusion, given the of items on the agenda is concerned, that is pretty well set large number of customers and other relationships which by yourself and by custom, sir. This Bill will take its place the companies enjoy. The Bill, if enacted, is expected to on the order paper, and if that position is to be changed at result in advantages for customers as well as for the group all, then it will be at the wish of this House, not of me or itself and for the Isle of Man as a jurisdiction. Ifthe transfer Halifax sir. thank the hon. his takes place for certain to the Bill, it is anticipated that new PLC, I member for remarks business will be undertaken by the group in the Isle of and beg to move the resolution in my name. Man, safeguarding existing jobs as well as creating new employment opportunities in this Island. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that under The Isle of Man Financial Supervision Commission has standing order 212, on the petition of the promoters, Halifax been advised of the proposed restructuring and the method PLC, the petitioner having certified the required of dealing with the same by means of the Bill, and it has compliance with standing order 191, leave be granted to no objection. introduce the Halifax International Bill. Will those in favour Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, under please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes standing order 212, on the petition of the Promoters, have it. Halifax PLC, the petitioner having certified the required compliance with standing order 191, leave be granted to introduce the Halifax International Bill. Bills for First Reading The Speaker: Mr Corkill, Onchan. The Speaker: I call upon the Secretary to the House to Mr Corkill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, lay papers in accordance with the order paper and the Mr Speaker. supplementary order paper.

Halifax International Bill —Leave to Introduce Granted Bills for First Reading K244 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

The Secretary: The Trustee Bill, Mr Rimington; the inclusion of this clause, to enable it to become law in the Genetically Modified Organisms Bill, Mr Henderson; the future. Thank you, sir. Minimum Wage Bill, Mr Shimmin; the Road Transport Bill, Mrs Hannan; the Online Gambling Regulation Bill, The Speaker: The Treasury minister, Mr Corkill. Mr Bell; and the Fair Trading (Amendment) Bill, Mrs Crowe. Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As hon. members will be aware, the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, moved an amendment to enable sales of scratch Gaming, Betting and Lotteries cards in a particular form that is sold in the UK. For instance (Amendment) Bill— one particular firm, Littlewoods, produces them. The question was raised during the reading of this Bill as to Third Reading Approved the duty situation on such cards. It is my understanding that in the United Kingdom, where these scratch cards are The Speaker: We now move to item number 11, the sold, no duty is applied. That is unlike the national lottery Gaming, Betting and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill for third scratch cards, where 12 per cent duty is applied. Of course, reading, and I call upon the member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. here in the Isle of Man, all the duty raised from national lottery ticket sales is ring-fenced and distributed to good Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Bill is a short, causes. non-controversial measure designed to amend a number This hon. House did approve the clause and what will of minor lottery related issues following the introduction be required from Treasury's point of view is a level playing of the UK national lottery into the Island. field. What we are suggesting is that perhaps in another The provisions of this Bill will allow Christmas draw place, as the Bill proceeds, an amendment may be included tickets to be sold from the beginning of November rather to allow the Treasury to apply duty at a 12 per cent rate than December, allow society lotteries to be advertised and similar to that applied to the national lottery. This will amend the limits on jackpot prizes for such lotteries. The ensure the level playing field in terms of ticket sales. Bill will also legalise horse racing nights for the first time, The Treasury did consider whether it might be a way removing a long-held misunderstanding as to their status, forward to go against the hon. member Mr Houghton's and also remove the anomaly in respect of bingo being amendment and try to suspend standing orders to see played at charitable functions. whether it could go back to clauses stage. I am conscious Additionally, the Bill removes the controls on opening of the busy agenda that the Keys has today and of the fact hours for betting shops and extends the ability of licensed that the House approved the amendment, but Ijust wanted betting shops to advertise. We have also taken the to bring it to members'ttention that Treasury will be opportunity to review the position of the Gaming seeking a level playing field. Commissioners and, in the light of new legislation, There is a potential as a result of that action, Mr Speaker, recommended renaming them the Gambling Commission and I need to put this on record today, that the viability of and linking that body to the Department of Home Affairs selling such scratch cards in the Island as a result of to reflect their new responsibilities. applying duty may be in question. However, our studies to has also The Bill been amended to enable non-national date and our contact with promoters has not come up with lottery scratch cards to be sold in the Island. I understand the answer to that. There are certain percentages which that concerns have been expressed by Treasury on are in the UK Act. For instance, with the Littlewoods reflection and that it has agreed a way forward with the scratch cards, 20 per cent of the proceeds go to charity, mover of this amendment. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) and prizes and expenses must not exceed 80 per cent. I Consultation has taken place, Mr Speaker, with all the understand that retailers get a margin in the region of 10 to interested parties and a Council of Ministers sub-committee 12.5 per cent and what is seen as a reasonable percentage has spent many months considering these issues. for expenses is round about 35 per cent. As I have stated, this is a short non-controversial The issue I am raising, Mr Speaker, is that there may measure and as there are no outstanding queries from the not be enough in the kitty, as it were, to produce 12 per clauses stage, I beg to move the third reading of the cent duty. This will be something that I think will come Gaming, Betting and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill. back to the Keys if the other place sees fit to accept an amendment, which will be in the Treasury's name, to apply Mr Duggan: I beg to second, sir. 12 per cent duty. I understand where the hon. member for Douglas North is coming from. Only a few outlets sell The Speaker: Mr Houghton. national lottery scratch cards and his desire is to level up the playing field for smaller retailers such as newsagents Mr Houghton: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I just rise and corner shops, (A Member: Hear, hear.) who feel to give final support to this Bill before it moves to the disadvantaged that they are not able to sell these types of Legislative Council. I would just like to put on record my scratch cards. Hence the amendment in the hon. member's appreciation to the minister for his assistance with my name, but I raise the issue because the question was asked clause that he has mentioned whilst he has moved this third at the previous reading of this Bill and I felt that I did not reading and also to the Treasury minister for his have the answers the hon. member, my colleague, Mr understanding and finding a way forward for the continual Karran, raised at that time.

Gaming, Betting and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill —Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K245

The Speaker: Mr Karran. contradiction (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) in his position on this matter. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, I do support, Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I think this tactic following consultations, the measures agreed between the today in this House highlights the importance of a second hon. member for North Douglas and the Treasury and I chamber, because what we are doing today is bad law in would urge hon. members to do so as well. my opinion. The fact of the matter is that within this House we pointed out that this issue had not been thought out The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that the and had not worked out. It is crazy that we have in one Gaming, Betting and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill be read minute people complaining about the lack of money going a third time. Will those in favour please say aye; against, to the Sports Council and in the next minute moving an no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. amendment that will do away with even more finances as far as the lottery is concerned. Adivision was called for and voting resulted as follows: I think the Treasury minister has acted in an unparliamentary manner today. We should have debated For: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Rodan, Sir Miles Walker, Mrs that issue in this House and discussed whether we are going Crowe, Messrs Rimington, Brown, Houghton, to have the 12 per cent duty. This idea that somehow it Henderson, Duggan, Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Messrs does not matter and that we will send it off to another place Shimmin, Downie, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Singer, Bell, and they will come back with a sensible amendment is not Corkill, Cannell, Gelling and the Speaker - 21 the answer. It is not a good parliamentary process and it even highlights the next item on this Bill in terms of having Against: Mr Karran -1 to have some sort of second chamber. I think the Treasury minister should have moved an The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion carries in the amendment. We should have debated the issues in this House, 21 votes in favour and 1 vote against. House. Atthe end of the day, we should be passing law in good faith that we think is right in this House. We should not expect the second chamber to come along and sort out Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered the problems that we have allowed to happen in this House. —Bill Vainstyr Loayreyder, I think that that is wrong and I despair, Withdrawn as I know that it will fall on deaf ears as usual. The Speaker: Hon. members, we now move to the Constitution consideration clauses. I call the The Speaker: I call upon the mover to reply, Mr Bell. Bill, of upon hon. member for Onchan, Mr Cannell. Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The comments centre around the one issue of scratch cards being sold elsewhere Mr Cannell: As the Bill takes as its main aim reform make the Island's on the Island. As I mentioned in my introductory to legislature fully accountable to the comments, I have had discussions with both the mover of electorate, it is somewhat strange that one of its relatively minor the clause and the Treasury minister to try to find a way provisions appears to have attracted more attention forward on this. The conclusion that the Treasury has drawn than all the other clauses put together. Notwithstanding that that the election the is that this would be the best way of dealing with it in the it proposes of Legislative Council Council. shall in future be by public franchise, that Tynwald shall become one and that the There is, of course, the possibility of another option, body number and make up of the constituencies shall is the clause other than that referred to by the Treasury minister. That is change considerably, it that the cards generate 20 per cent profit for charity, and it regarding the vote of the Lord Bishop which has excited could well be that Littlewoods or whoever else sells these many people. cards, may be willing to direct that 20 per cent into Manx Mr Speaker, let me say at the outset that this Bill has no intention whatever charities rather than, as I understand happens at the of depriving the Isle of Man of enjoying moment, to Liverpool charities. That might be another way any of the other roles presently undertaken by this or any round it which would assist the viability of these sales future Lord Bishop. The holder of that office will continue should that be desired. to be present at sittings of the Legislative Council and I take the point made by the hon. member for Onchan, Tynwald and will be quite welcome to contribute whatever Mr Karran, that perhaps it would have been better to clear words of wisdom as are seen fit. the air and have this thrashed out on the floor of this Neither is it suggested for one moment that the work of chamber, but the way forward was agreed between the two the Bishop and the established Church is no longer needed parties on this issue and I am doing my best at the moment in today's swiftly changing society. Indeed, quite the to facilitate an agreement between the two interested reverse. At a time when so many people are finding that parties. the moral liberality they pressed for and eventually won is I have to say that while being slammed by the hon. not proving to be the golden chalice so sought after, there member for Onchan, it is somewhat ironic, even though I probably has rarely been a time when the spiritual work of supported his action as well, that he was the one who argued bishops and the clergy could be so beneficial. The fact so strongly about having to give notice for amendments to remains, however that that influence no longer demands give people time to consider them. I think there is a slight automatic right to a vote in a democratic government. I

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn K246 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

know that many column inches of the Church of England up with this other important step. This Bill provides the newspaper The Isle of Man Church Leader have been opportu Illty. devoted to pleading for the Bishop's vote to be retained. It The MacDermott Commission, as far back as 1959, seemed at times as if what I am proposing was to string up recommended that the Bishop should continue to be an ex the Bishop rather than merely the removal of his office officio member of the Legislative Council. It concluded, from the voting strength. Certainly, the newspapers'otion however, that it did not mean that he should be expected of canvassing members to record their votes before a debate to take a full and active part in all of the deliberations of appears to be a new way of conducting government Tynwald. business. Clause 1 has sub-clause (I), which defines that the The public of the Isle of Man no longer wish to have Legislative Council shall consist of 11 members, namely decisions which directly affect them possibly influenced the President of Tynwald, the Bishop, the Attorney-General by people whom they have not selected. There have been and eight members elected under clause 3 of this Bill. The claims that the Bishop is elected, but such elections have Bishop and the Attorney-General shall not have the right little to do with the genuine electorate of the Isle of Man. to vote in Tynwald or in the Legislative Council. When it comes down to it, there is no reason why the Sub-clause 2 recognises that as far as the Attorney- Bishop should any more enjoy a vote than, say, the head General is concerned, that is the present situation, as he of the Roman Catholic Church here, the head of the was relieved of his vote several years ago. The position of Methodists or, indeed, the head of any other religious the Bishop as a member of Tynwald has been under factions. That the Bishop is the head of the established discussion for many years and reminders have often been Church no longer stands up as a reason. The notion that made that he is viewed as being the last of the barons and the other Churches and religions are content to abide by as such should be removed. I move that clause 2 stand part the Lord Bishop's leadership is so wide of the mark that it of the bill. is not worthy of serious consideration. However, what has really alarmed me about the The Speaker: Mr Quine, member for Ayre. campaign of opposition to the removal of the Bishop's vote is the manner in which it has been suggested that the entire Mr Quine: The proposal that the Lord Bishop should diocese of Sodor and Man may come tumbling down as a retain his seat in the Legislative Council but not have a result of its acceptance. The taking away of the Bishop' vote is in line with the recommendation contained in a vote would make no difference whatever to its report by the select committee of the Keys, which establishment. It is also interesting to observe that a deliberated on the future Legislative Council for some two diocesan working party concluded that the constitutional years. During that time, extensive evidence was taken from changes being proposed could endanger the survival of Keys and from members of the council and from the public. the diocese of Sodor and Man. Hon. members will note I would submit, sir, that that is the proper conduit and that this is not an authoritative statement, but simply the medium for assessing in an objective form the merit of the opinion of the five members of that working party who case. use the word 'could', not 'will'n respect of endangering Part of that process - indeed perhaps the central issue in the survival of the diocese. What really is of concern - or that select committee process - was the legitimacy of the at least should be - is the diocese's financial structure and Legislative Council, given that its members are not subject whether those charged with maintaining it can come up to popular election. The select committee concluded that with a plan likely to ensure its future. members of the Legislative Council should be subject to The Island needs continued spiritual leadership, as rarely popular election, which as I say is the essence of the Bill. have so many social problems had to be faced. I am The position of the Lord Bishop, who is a full member of confident that, with the united effort placed behind the the Legislative Council, clearly cannot be addressed in that resolve of rationalising today's needs of religion, our Island way. He is not subject, and never has been subject to churchmen will overcome these overwhelming difficulties. popular election. For motions in Tynwald to succeed- In his speech to this hon. House in June, the hon. and I think this comes to the nub of the matter really - they member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, referred to the Island's are required to attract a majority of votes in both the House moves towards greater independence and control of our of Keys and the Legislative Council. The Lord Bishop' own destiny. So taking that as a maximum, the vote of the vote can therefore be the deciding factor. Is that right? Does Bishop in the Legislative Council and/or Tynwald can no that meet a test of democratic legitimacy before this longer be justified. legislature? Similarly, the Lord Bishop's vote in the Comparisons are often made between the Isle of Man Legislative Council can determine the outcome of a motion and the Channel Islands. Jersey has always appeared to be in that chamber. That is really what this is all about. one step ahead of us until recently. It entered the finance As the hon. mover has said, the importance of having sector ahead of us and it went postally independent ahead an advocate of the Christian view point in Tynwald and of us. Its parliament consists of 53 popularly elected the Legislative Council, is broadly accepted. Hence, I members and four non-elected representatives, including would suggest, the decision embodied in this Bill, which that of the established Church. However, the four have is that the Lord Bishop should remain in Tynwald and the every right of speech, but they have no right of vote. We Legislative Council and be able to express his views. Some have caught up with the Channel Islands in finance and members of the House of Keys, while supporting that broad postal services, and it is time that this hon. House caught premise that there should be an advocate of the Christian

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K247

view point, rightly ask why it should be the Church of Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to move an England. We can, of course, point to the position of the amendment to clause 1 so that it reads as follows:- established church. Astronger view prevails that questions whether that is appropriate in todayis day and age, or Page 1, line 8; for subsection (2) substitute- whether that viewpoint should be expressed through a more ecumenical approach to advocacy of the Christian view "(2) The Attorney-General shall not have the right point in the legislature. to vote in Tynwald or in the Council, and his presence As I said, there is a full understanding both in the Keys, shall not reckon towards the constitution of a quorum " and I think now outside, to the historical backdrop to the of Tynwald or the Council. Lord Bishop having a seat on the Legislative Council. There is also a recognition of the Church of England as the This would retain the Bishop within the Council and established church, although that perhaps has greater on the Tynwald and retain his vote in both. import across the water than it has here. At the same time, The intended abolition of the Lord Bishop's vote has I think we should give due regard to the impact which that created quite a stir in the general community, particularly vote can have on the deliberations of the branches of the amongst practising church-goers. That is clear from the legislature and Tynwald as a whole, and whether that vote great amount of sincere lobbying of members that has taken can be justified, having regard to the need - particularly in place. It is interesting and extremely relevant that this this day and age - of full democratic legitimacy. proposal is being proposed by most, if not all, I have read all about the diocese of the Sodor and Man denominations on the Island. I have spoken to and its importance to the Island. However, in great sincerity representatives of these other denominations and they I would question whether the loss of the Lord Bishopis clearly express the view that they look to the Lord Bishop vote - or his right to vote because he will be there to speak to speak for them also, particularly when moral issues come - would be a defining consideration in determining whether before Tynwald for debate. Even the United Kingdom has or not the diocese remains in being. That is how some not taken away the vote of the Bishops in the House of Church of England advocates have put the matter across Lords. The intended removal of the Lord Bishopis vote by to the public. the hon. mover of this bill appears to be prompted by a The issue to me is quite straight forward. This is a wish to see all members of Tynwald popularly elected. He legislature. Whose decisions require full democratic is saying that as the Lord Bishop would not be elected legitimacy. If we retain the position whereby the Lord similarly to other members of the legislature, then we Bishop has a vote, having regard to the structure which should compromise. That is, we do not exclude him from we have got within our legislature, that vote can distort his membership, but we take away his vote. what could otherwise be the wish of the public expressed I support the principle of a popularly elected Legislative through their elected representatives. Council. However, it is obviously not possible to elect a I believe that this clause - which flows from a finding Lord Bishop in the same manner as we elect our of the select committee of the Keys - strikes the correct parliamentary representatives. This, however, does not balance. I will be supporting the clause as embodied in the mean the Lord Bishop is foisted upon this diocese in an Bill. undemocratic manner and without the people having any say. The Speaker: Mr Bell, member for Ramsey. I previously pointed out that the final selection committee for the Bishop includes four people from the Mr Bell: Mr Speaker, I have not really said very much Isle of Man who are elected by the Synod. The Synod is so far on this Bill as it has made its progress but I would democratically elected by the church congregations of the like to make one point. I have no doubt at all about the Isle of Man. That seems pretty democratic to me. Then sincerity of views held by the mover, and indeed the take into account that the four inembers from the Isle of opponents of this particular Bill, but I express my concern. Man can veto a candidate and that consultation on the list Allof us involved in this debate today are well aware that of candidates previously took place with the Chief Minister this Bill ultimately will go nowhere in this particular and other interested parties, who have a great influence on session. The debate which is likely to ensue on this bill the selection of a new Lord Bishop. and its various amendments today is likely to be lengthy. On second reading, I commented as to the reasons why We should bear in mind we have a great and growing the proposal to remove the Lord Bishop's vote should be number of urgent major bills which will affect every man, rejected, so I do not intend to go through all those woman and child on this Island, which we are trying to get arguments again. An argument has been put forward that through before the end of this session. We are rapidly the Lord Bishop should be restricted to voting on moral running out of time for that. I would just like to take this issues and issues that directly affect the church. I would opportunity to make a plea to the hon. mover, now that he contend that only the Lord Bishop can make that judgement has made his point, to consider withdrawing the Bill to at the time of debate and he has the right - as does every enable more urgent legislation to be dealt with, so that we other hon. member - to leave the Chamber if he or she can get some of these measures on the statute before the does not wish to vote. House goes into recess before the general election. Despite views being expressed by one or two members of the public in the Isle of Man at great length in the press The Speaker: Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. - views which are supposed to be the essence of political

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn K248 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

correctness - there is the danger that the views of certain of the diocese of Sodor and Man is in sight. I have no bishops in the United Kingdom will become more doubt at all about that in my mind. prominent in calling for the dissolution of the diocese of I recall a few years ago when Bishop Attlow was due to Sodor and Man and its incorporation into the diocese of retire, I had a visitation from representatives of the church Carlisle or Liverpool. to talk about the next bishop and what sort of a person Some have rejected that argument - we have heard that should be appointed. Should he be elderly, should he be argument rejected today. I have been told by an young, should he be involved in church life outside the authoritative source, however, that the loss of the Lord Island as well as just within the Isle of Man? One of the Bishopis vote in Tynwald would be seen as his influence issues that was raised at that time - and it is some time ago fading and might well put extreme pressure onto the church now - was the possibility of the Bishop losing his vote. authorities to press ahead with this incorporation as it would The discussion we had at that stage left me in no doubt at be financially attractive. Then we would certainly lose any all that this particular principle was of the utmost real influence on appointments. I said previously that this importance to the church and, if the vote were removed, it Island was moving towards greater independence and would be seen as a devaluing of that position. autonomy - and I hope we are. I would say to the hon. I agree with the hon. member for Ramsey, although I am mover of this Bill that, it is important not to take away the not certain whether I am going to support his amendment. It Lord Bishop's vote and risk the loss in the future of the raises just one issue of a number that I find myself on the Sodor and Man diocese, which would represent a backward other side of the fence for. I have stated before - and I am not step from our aims and aspirations. In my view the Lord going to go over the arguments again - I believe that the Bishop is an important adviser and guide to Tynwald in its fundamentals of this Bill are wrong. (Members: Hear, hear.) deliberations. His present position is unrelated to the The hon. member for Ayre said that the real essence of this principal of electing the members of the Legislative Council Bill was to create a democratically elected Legislative Council by popular vote, but that is certainly no reason to take his and to give it legitimacy. The real essence of this Bill to my vote away. mind is to destroy the House of Keys and the Legislative We are experiencing many attempts to remove religious Council as we know them. I would destroy the position of guidance from our lives. Moral teachings and standards the Speaker, his Chair and his Office. I have touched on that are dismissed as being out of touch with the modern world. matter before. It would turn over the recent legislation We are seeing the whittling away of previously accepted regarding election of the President ofTynwald. It would make standards of behaviour and the importance of family life a complete turn-over of the government, the chamber and and responsibility. We are expected to accept harmful the procedures that are in place in this Island. I think that is influences into our culture disguised as freedom and human wrong. rights. However unintentional this clause is to cause The member says that the essence of the Bill is to create damage to the society we live in, that is what it will do. a directly elected Legislative Council, but this is not the The select committee was of the opinion that the easiest way to do that. Although I do not agree with that substance of my amendment raised issues for political principle, I have to say that I would find it easier to stomach determination. I am pleased, therefore, to present the case a measure which aimed for a directly elected Legislative today for retention of the Lord Bishop's vote. We are not Council, leaving Tynwald and the House of Keys without talking about the present Lord Bishop, but about holders a lot of interference. of that position in the future. I hope that hon. members It is reasonable to have a second chamber elected by will support my amendment and retain the Lord Bishopis the House of Keys - democratically elected on a very fair vote in Tynwald and the Legislative Council, regardless of basis every five years - acting as an electoral college. I do what other changes are brought about in the final not believe there is anything wrong at all with that system. construction of his Bill. This is the power house of Tynwald - and that expression has been used on many, many occasions. This is the The Speaker: Member for Douglas North, Mr democratic elected chamber, and it is the will of this House Henderson. that will carry at the end of the day. I say 'at the end of the day'ecause the second chamber to me is quite right if it Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to raise makes us think again, holds us up for a little time, and the hon. member for Ramsey's point and reiterate those makes suggestions that we go back to consider. But at the important. I beg to second. end of the day the will of this House is paramount and will caITy. Mr Speaker: Sir Miles Walker. I understand those who can work out mathematical equations saying 'Well you know, the Bishop's vote might Sir Miles Walker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope be a deciding factor on an important issue'. I honestly do members do not only concentrate on the proposed position not believe, however, that that has happened, certainly not for the Bishop when considering this clause. It is but one in my 24 years as a member of Tynwald. You can come up part of a number of what I believe are very important with hypothetical equations but I do not believe they prove matters, each of which should be considered on their merits. anything. I feel certain that the view of the hon. member for Ramsey Members will know that I do not agree with the contents is right. Nobody can be certain, but it is my belief that if of this Bill - and that is no news to the mover. However, the vote of the Bishop is taken away in Tynwald, the end there is the issue of the Bishop, and the issue of a directly

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K249

elected Tynwald. There is the suggestion that two his proposal of the first clause. We have seen the sick- committees will be formed to compose the Legislative making situation of the mover of the amendment, Mr Council and the House of Keys, however that is going to Singer, and the seconder, in relation to the public lobbying. happen. I am not convinced that members will sit easily (Interjection) As far as I am concerned, the issue should with the view that their names go into a hat and some may be either right or wrong. end upstairs and some may end up in the House of Keys. The fact of the matter is that if we were looking at The Bill is fraught with difficulties, not only for the diocese priorities outside and representing the people, the Bishopis of Sodor and Man. I do not believe the difficulties that vote would come very low on the priority list. What people will emerge from the Bill have been identified, certainly outside complain bitterly about is that you could spend 25 by our constituents out there. years and leave the Upper House without ever having had I do not agree with this clause proposing the election of a mandate, although you are almost on a life support unit- the President of Tynwald. To elect 33 members to Tynwald, and that is the only reason why you have to leave. These then choose one of them to be President to preside over are the real issues that the people outside this hon. House Tynwald - that is the proposal. It is suggested that the House are upset about the crazy situation that we have in respect of Keys will only sit to consider legislation and Tynwald of the electoral situation, that 18 months after a general will meet more often to discuss other matters. At present election no-one wants a seat in the council of the dead, but Tynwald's job is to preside and to be apolitical. To expect 18 months before an election there is one battle royal. one member to allow his name to go forward to be elected I have no intentions of moving this clause, but I wanted as President and then expect him or her in five years'ime to debate the issue. I was debating to move these (Laughter) to persuade his constituents that he has done a amendments, but the legislation has no real credibility. This good job for them (Interj ection and laughter) is beyond hon. House would be better off voting out each clause as it belief. The same issues concern, Mr Speaker, the opposite comes along. The senior member of this House, the ex- Speaker in this hon. House. At the moment our Speaker Chief Minister is quite right. What sort of nonsense is it? can, and does, express his and his constituentsi points of It is nonsense to suggest that of four members in Onchan, view in Tynwald. I think that position is going to become one of us will have a nice little cosy arrangement. You more difficult. So I am voting against this clause. I think I would be completely politically neutered by becoming the am going to vote against the proposal by the hon. member new President. You would sit up there and spend five years for Ramsey relating to the Bishop because that is just one without saying or doing anything, but smiling like a issue of several that I cannot come to terms with. I shall Cheshire cat, then going out to the people and expecting listen with interest to the rest of the debate to see what is them to come out. This is just another misguided wish- said about the amendment, but I have to say I do not think list. A previous piece of legislation suggested that we it is a solution to the problems caused by this particular should expect the Upper House to change bad law because Bill. Thank you. we are not prepared to change it down here. It just shows how important the Upper House is to the structure of this The Speaker: Member for Glenfaba. hon. House. We have heard much talk about the 'mainland'. The Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, I entirely agree with every adjacent isle has changed its upper house. The descendants word of the last speaker, the hon. member for Rushen, Sir of the love-child of the crown of the adjacent island and Miles Walker. There is no need for me to repeat any of it, their descendants have been replaced by cronyism of an but I agree even more with the remarks of the hon. member equally bad type. (Member: Hear, hear) They have made for Ramsey, Mr Bell. I think we all know in our heart of it worse. Frankly, this piece of legislation would make our hearts that we are completely wasting our time debating government even more inefficient, totally ineffective and this. It is absolutely certain that it will not become law out of touch with reality. We should not support the before the general election and, therefore, the whole thing amendment for the hon. member for Ramsey and we should will have to be reconsidered by a new House of Keys in not support the clause. The clause is nonsense, the whole the future. We know we have a lot of very important Bill is nonsense and it should be put in the bin where it government business to attend to, which is vital to those deserves to be. It is important that, if we do go down the we represent, Ijoin the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, line of constitutional development, we have to get it right. in asking the hon. mover of this bill to withdraw it, because We have, for the first time, a generation of people who he too must know in his heart of hearts that it will not have the opportunity to pick and choose their careers. For become law. All we are doing is having a debate, which the first time, it may be an advantage to be poor in this may be interesting but will get us nowhere. country compared to the adjacent island. Fifteen years ago when I came into this House I never thought that we would The Speaker: Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. end up maybe having a situation where our poor could be better off than the poor of the adjacent island, but I believe Mr Karran: It is up to this House to make a decision that that is achievable now. We should remember that that on this Bill, not to ask the hon member to withdraw it. it is important. One fundamental situation is stability, That is nonsense, it is rubbish, it is out of touch with reality. stability, stability. Some of the points that the hon. member for Rushen has I know there is a problem of stagnation, but I believe come up with do not belong to the real world. We have that this Bill is cherry picking. If we support it, we will already seen the mover with a white flag up concerning throw the baby out with the bath water. Hopefully, we will

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn K250 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

go through the clauses and the majority of the people in the paper, every week it is little lumps, little lumps, little this hon. House will vote for common sense. It will be a lumps. There is no analysis. There is no broad discussion good thing if that happens. We must vote against every of the issues and that is a weakness. clause in this Bill. I am in favour of a directly elected Legislative Council and I am disappointed with the rejection and of what I call The Speaker: Therefore, hon. member, your tabled the summary dismissal of the idea in the previous report amendment to clause 1 is withdrawn. Is that correct, sir? of the select committees that have looked at these issues. The reasoning behind that is suspect, but I shall not go Mr Karran: That is right. into that too deeply at this moment. As the hon. member for Rushen said, for him that might The Speaker: Mr Rimington. be the second option. For me, it would be the first option, but that would actually keep the structure of our constitution Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I oppose this largely together with the Keys and the Council and I think clause, which represents the guts of the Bill, and every that that itself is important. subsequent clause. If I were in full agreement with this The proposals in front of us today represent the worst Bill - which I am not - I would still be standing up to oppose possible option. We have 24 members of the House of Keys it. I do not believe that we have the right to move such a and our existing constituencies. Yes, there may be major constitutional change within one term of this House. arguments to look at how those boundaries or the We do not have that mandate. We are elected to govern. representation are done for equity purposes. Personally, I We are elected to legislate and make decisions, and that is am largely content with the situation. Minister, the strength right. We are elected to react to changing circumstances, of having those 24 members shows our ability to represent make the appropriate recommendations and go forward. our constituencies quite closely. But that is also a weakness The constitution is something different. The constitution in that members tend to be concerned with parochial issues actually does not belong to us, it belongs to the nation. It and perhaps do not concentrate on the national issues as belongs to the people. It does not belong to a few people much. who think, 'Well, I'l have ago at this one and change it in The proposals before us today are having to have 32 or between general elections', when it was not an issue at the 33 members of Tynwald and have smaller constituencies last general election - and I was involved in that general and exaggerate that weakness. The Island is in a position election. Nothing was spoken about the constitution, or where we need clear national policies. We need to be hardly spoken about the constitution then. There was no looking at our future direction. We do not want that widespread discussion. There has been no widespread stagnation that has been mentioned. We want to go forward. discussion since. There has been no overwhelming social Are we to have 32 members elected on the parish pump demand or a groundswell of opinion in the population that basis? Is that going to take us forward? I think not. the whole thing is falling apart, and that we have got to A nonsense that has been referred to is the President of make some radical changes. Tynwald and how that office should be determined. That This is the brainchild of, certain individuals who want has been dealt with very carefully and very well. The to go forward in a different way, but who do not have second nonsense is this division which has been alluded widespread backing outside of this House. I think if you to; the 32 members so elected then dividing amongst are going to change our constitution so radically, you must themselves. For example, 'You 24 will be the primary have widespread backing. You can not, within the space legislative body and you eight will be the revising body'. of five years, make such radical changes to the constitution. It is dishonest to the electorate in that you have been It is an insult to the people of this Island (A Member: elected, but you do not know what you are going to be Yes.) that you can even dream of doing that without going doing (AMember: Yes) nor do the electorate know what out there and saying, 'Look these are the problems. These you are going to be doing. Are you going to be a reviser or are the potential solutions. Let us debate this openly and a primary? At the end of it, we would have a single then look for a really good consensus for a way forward'. chamber, parliament, whereas our tradition is not. On that ground alone, I would be against this Bill. Our tradition is to have three chambers, but essentially The hon. member, with sincerity, has brought this issue it is two chambers - an Upper and a Lower House. That is forward. It is a shame that the issues that are involved in a democratic tradition that is long in our history. It is long the constitution - the fact that we are proposing to change in the history of our neighbours around the world with from a three-chamber body to a single-chamber body- whom we share that democratic tradition. I hope that whilst and such intricate matters have not really been explored I am not going to be knocked down for talking about outside outside of this House and in the media. What has been of this Island. Universal suffrage did not come from this explored is the issue of the Bishop, but other than that Island, it came from outside. A lot of our democratic there have been only sound bites, of which I was ashamed. traditions are all part of a movement of mankind throughout I am sorry to say to the member sitting behind the hon. Europe and beyond. We are closely tied to those contexts. Speaker that it is a reflection on yourselves that, in this Asingle chamber might be workable if we had a strong small Island, you are not able to broaden out the debate on number of scrutiny committees, as suggested in the reforms major issues and try and encompass the very deep ideas that have been proposed in Jersey, but no proposals have that are involved in constitutional change. That reflects on been put forward to bring those committees allied to this other social and legislative issues as well and when I read Bill and nor would we have enough members outside of

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K251

the Executive, as is proposed in Jersey, to man those he has been elected by one vote. Of course, it could have committees. Do we want to throw out so much history and made a difference. A vote is important, but is a vote tradition? Do we throw out the checks and balances of the necessary if someone is able to have their say? (A second chamber for a single-chamber parliament of which Member: Hear, hear.) Ifpeople passing could come in off there has really been no clear argument in favour? the streets and have their say- as they can at the Bar of the Do these proposals bring greater wisdom to our process Court, ifit is something that affects them personally - would of government? Will they encourage the election of they not bring a fresh outlook to some of the issues that candidates, who are concerned with national politics and we are discussing here? Ifthey did not have a vote, would the future direction of the Island? The answer to me is it devalue what they said. The member for Rushen talks clearly negative and I will be opposing the Bill clause by about press coverage of what we are saying about this clause. legislation and it not being made available to the public. That makes a difference as well, because the people do The Speaker: Member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. not understand. That is why, when people wrote to me about the Bishop and the Bishop's vote, I wrote in detail about Mrs Hannan: Thanks, Vainstyr Loayreyder, I believe what some of this legislation was going to do. The people that the Legislative Council should be elected by the people. would not know who they were electing, and where to. It The member who has just resumed his seat also supports was not just a simple issue of the Bishop having a vote, that, but if parliament is fully democratic, all members of the Bishop having a say. You know, if you stand for that parliament should be elected by the people. However, selection to a local authority, what you can say and what a I would take up issue with him that we are not, and hardly local authority can do. ever have been, democratic. For 10 glorious years, we had If you stand for the Keys, it is legislation. On the back one person, one vote. We then reverted back to one, two or of that, it could mean a position in government where you three votes, depending on where you lived and Legislative can add a different dimension of influence. But our main Council not being elected by the people. There might be job is looking at legislation which could be on the statuteis some sort of pretence there that there is democracy, but books for a hundred years. That is our main job and if we there is really not democracy. cannot get that over to the public at election time that that We should be looking at one person one vote. This is what we would be looking at, not just revising or making legislation does not challenge what is happening at the sure that the legislation is workable, it would be very moment and, in actual fact, cements that it should carry difficult to even stand for election and vote on such issues. on. That is one reason why I am opposed to this legislation. Why is the vote important? It is important to us when If we are going to change anything, we should be giving we have been out and talked to the people. We know how equal voting rights to everyone. The member for Rushen the people have felt, but in other circumstances we listen says that we did not lead. We were the first country to to the Attorney-General, we take advice from the Attorney- give, in a limited way, women the vote (AMember: Hear, General. He does not speak on every issue but when he is hear.) I do not believe that that was lead by the church. invited to speak, he does. The same applies in Legislative The member for Ramsey, moving his amendment, Council. He does not need a vote. I am not sure how I will suggested that everything that is good came from the vote- because I shall have to listen to the winding up speech Bishop being a member of Legislative Council. That is - on this amendment, but I just ask why it is important. clearly not the case. Social change did not come about The Bishop is in Legislative Council, he is there in because of pressure from the Church of England or because Tynwald, and is the vote important in that way? of any pressure brought by the Bishop sitting in Tynwald My concern with this Bill is that it does not do what I or in Legislative Council. There was no moral movement would want. The individual members are in the street to and that is the same throughout a number of countries elect a Legislative Council which they feel would do the throughout the world whereby the state and church came job of making sure that legislation is satisfactory. I do not together. In fact, it brought about a form of conservatism think that the Legislative Council, as it is at the moment, that did not suggest that there should be change. It was does a satisfactory job to protect the individuals in the only with the bringing about of Methodism and some street. How will we reach a position where Legislative religious establishments that brought about, and were, a Council understands its position? Its position should be to movement for change. Let us face it, the Bishop sat in protect the interests of people, not in some sort of politically Tynwald, Legislative Council all those years and there was divisive way. no move to remove the hanging law, do away with the It was on the issue of one person, one vote that I believe birch and all of that. There was no lead there, so I take that members really let down the people of the Isle of Man, issue with the member for Ramsey in his suggestion that when they actually supported going back to one person, we need this position actually in Tynwald, in Legislative one vote. I believe that, in carrying out their job, they should Council, to bring about, or at least support, some of the have put a hold on that. They did not do that and I believe which things might be good for the people. in the instance where they are elected by the people, or Is the vote important? The Bishop is there and he is whether they are elected from the elective college - that is able to have his say. Is the vote important? the House of Keys - that there should, in actual fact, be a also take I issue with the member for Rushen, Sir Miles, constitution for the Legislative Council which spells out who said that one vote has never made any difference. to them their rights and responsibilities. Anyone going there Excuse me, but when the Chief Minister is being elected, would know then what their rights and responsibilities were

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn K252 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

to the electorate, which is the House of Keys - but, in a Now the only option is not to elect the Legislative wider field, the people. I am not happy with this legislation Council, by popular vote. There is an option that you can and I am not sure how I am going to vote. Thank you. appoint a Legislative Council but take them outside of executive government, because that is where the argument The Speaker: Member for Castletown, Mr Brown. is coming from. The few people who are agitated about the Legislative Mr Brown: Thankyou, Mr Speaker. As I made it clear Council are agitated because there is a minister who is a at the second reading, I oppose the Bill that is before us. member of Legislative Council. They see that as being This clause makes a major change, of course, to implement wrong, because he is not elected, regardless of his ability. the proposal that has been put forward by a private I can understand that because in principle, you can say member's Bill. Even the select committee of the House 'Yes, why should that happen' but of course what they came forward with certain things that left it all up in the do not see is the other side. All the other members of air to leave with the House. That is fine - it did not give us Legislative Council are also members of government with any indication or leadership. The problem is that the people delegated powers and can carry out functions on behalf of we represent are not really aware, or fully understand, the a minister regardless. implications of what is before the House today. I do not The whole thing has got itself into a mess. To try and really think that the members are fully aware, or understand deal with this at this stage in the life of the House, and the implications of what is before us today. without the public which we represent - ultimately the I, therefore, oppose the change. Those of us who oppose people this will affect - fully understanding the implications the change are accused of being those who do not want to of this Bill is an absolute nonsense. It is more than a see the Legislative Council elected. I refute that. I do not nonsense. It is not what we are here for. We are here to have a problem with the Legislative Council being elected, defend the institution for the people and amend it, as as long as we get the infrastructure right and we get their appropriate. To make this wholesale change without the role right. If we do not get their role right, one thing is people understanding is totally wrong. The people have absolutely sure, there will be major conflict between an rights, we are only a representative of those people and elected House where the members with a large constituency this change will affect us and everybody else, not us will try to dominate and the House of Keys where members because we are members of the House, but because we are have small constituencies because their number is greater. members of the society of the Isle of Man. There will be major political and policy concentrations We have had the argument about moving the Bishop, that will evolve as time goes on. so he cannot have a vote. We have confusion because the The hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran mentioned hon. mover said that the Bishop is in the government. The the United Kingdom and the changes that have been made Bishop is not in the government. The Bishop is the one in the House of Lords. Since they have made those changes, member who is not in the government. He is in the I do not think there have been as many confrontations parliament and there is a fundamental difference between between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. the parliament and the government, which again there is Why? It was reported in one of the political papers that, in often confusion about. People see Tynwald as the fact, the reason why is that those members of the House of government. Tynwald is not the government. Lords who have been appointed say that they have got a This House is not the government. Parliament is here job to do. 'We are here to defend X', whereas the House to scrutinise, and this House is here to scrutinise, the actions of Lords and those members who came from people of the government and to enact legislation the government appointed and from families from generations ago and so is proposing if the House believes it is in the best interest on, took a far more back seat role because they felt the of the Island. It is quite a fundamental separation - a elected House had the dominant say. So if we then extend relatively new one for the Isle of Man. It came into being that process and elect nine members of the Legislative in 1987 when we had the judiciary, the government and Council on a franchise by the public, then we will be going the parliament totally separated, the format of a true into greater confrontation. democracy. The first time we had ever had it in our history, This Bill, illogically in my opinion, makes for a situation so the Bishop is not in the government. that is even worse. Let me take my constituency - there The Bishop is sitting in Tynwald. If I am right, my will be two members for Castletown, one of whom is likely understanding is that, by statute, ministers of the Church to go into the Legislative Council. If I were the member of England are not allowed to be elected to the House of for Castletown, one of the two, why on earth would I want Keys or be members of Tynwald, but that does not apply to become a member of the Legislative Council under this to ministers from other religions so there is a difference. proposal? It is just illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever. The Bishop, therefore, represents the Church of England I again say that the Bill will destroy the sovereignty of the because ministers of the Church of England do not have House of Keys. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I the right to be elected to the House or to be in Tynwald. challenged the hon. mover of the Bill in here on a previous Mr Speaker, if there are concerns about members of occasion when this Bill was being debated. I said that the Legislative Council being in executive government and proposals would destroy the sovereignty of the House. He not being elected, I echo those concerns. I moved the said, 'I will do nothing to destroy the sovereignty of the motion here in the House very soon after the last general House'. Well I can tell the hon. member, this Bill does just election to set up a select committee with a specific and that. It downgrades the House of Keys. clear remit. I have to say - I said it at the time when they

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K253 reported back - that they did not keep to their remit because February 1997 that resulted in this Bill before us today. one of the main parts of the remit was to ask, 'What should The reason why it resulted in the Bill is that the select the future role of the Legislative Council be? What should committee, in carrying out its remit, as it did over a period their remuneration be?'e have not determined that, and of two years, with extensive consultation and the taking if you cannot determine the foundations of the of evidence which was all published and which members parliamentary structure of the Isle of Man, what is the point all received - they looked at the issue from every angle- of making these changes? Because all you can do is set out in a report which was received by this House last firefight after we have changed the system and then battle year a number of recommendations. Those away for years, while the Island may fall behind what it is recommendations were - I quote from the report, which doing. has been circulated and was subject to debate previously- What we have got may not be perfect, but what we have that 'We recommend the proposals for a directly elected got is serving the Island well. It may need adjusting and Tynwald Court should be adopted in preference to the less yes, there is a case for doing something difference with radical alternative of reducing the present capacity of the the Legislative Council. I do not disagree with that but, Legislative Council', and that, if met, the elected members for goodness sake, the House has got to get it right and of the Legislative Council were to be directly elected by this Bill is not right. It is fundamentally flawed, because it the people. The recommendation was that the most is creating, and it will create, total conflict. As the hon. appropriate form of direct election would be for the member for Rushen, Sir Miles, said, who on earth would Legislative Council to be an element of a directly elected want to stand for election, become the President of Tynwald Court in the manner described, et cetera. Tynwald, sit there and say nothing for five years, and then The thinking behind those conclusions and go back to the people and say, 'Well, I presided over recommendations was spelled out in the report and tested Tynwald; vote for me again'? My constituents would say, in this House. The decision was that those is 'I do not want you to be President, I want you to be in recommendations should be received and carried forward. there doing what is best for my constituency, for me. So The way in which the report was carried forward was that therefore you are going to have a problem, because the executive Council of Ministers considered the matter. everybody would say 'I do not want to be President'. What It proceeded to do that by forming a committee to examine do you do then? The whole thing is flawed. Mr Speaker, I the select committee's report in order to carry forward the hope members reject this clause. I will certainly support wish of this House. That committee had embarked upon the amendment because I agree with the basis of the its study of the issue and, more importantly, embarked on amendment, but I will be objecting to the clause and I hope what the report of the select committee said it should do, that that will make the Bill fall. I urge members to do that. which was to examine in some detail the implications of As the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, said, this Bill is changes through the constitution by directly electing going nowhere anyway, because there is no time left to go Tynwald Court. Of course, the original report anywhere. Let us just stop wasting time and get on with acknowledged that the lead time for replacing the present the job that really matters and deal with other issues that arrangements by the election of all elected members of are clearly important to people. Let us - if we feel it is Tynwald at a general election would be considerable. It right for those who are standing at the next general election said that 'it would be important to have careful and - make this an issue. Let us make it clear to the people, the extensive consultation on the necessary primary legislation implications of what is being proposed. which would no doubt include interim arrangements'. No sooner had that committee of the executive The Speaker: Member for Garff, Mr Rodan. embarked on the process of that crucial consultation and examination of all the consequences of changes of this Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that I have magnitude, than the hon. member for Onchan had brought probably been around long enough now to observe that it forward a draft Bill, so the process of the executive looking is quite common not only to lose sight of where we are at the matter was suspended while the matter was brought heading when we talk about political issues, but also of before this House again. In my view, as I said at second where we started. I was listening to the hon. member for reading, it was premature. I can understand why the hon. Rushen, Mr Rimington. In quite a lengthy second reading- member for Onchan acted as he did, but in my view it was type speech, he wondered why we were debating an issue premature to have brought forward this Bill before the that was not an issue at the general election. recommendations of the select committee were examined Ofcourse, the reason why we are debating this Bill today in the necessary detail and before the necessarily careful is that it is the end product of a process which started, as and extensive consultation was conducted. the hon. member for Castletown correctly says, as a result We have before us in this Bill, in my opinion, a well- of this House resolving in April 1997 to appoint a meaning piece of legislation. I am in full agreement with committee of five members to consider the role, the hon. member for Onchan on its principle - constitutional constitution and election of the Legislative Council, and reform and democratic election of all the members of this the implications for the remuneration of members of the parliament of the Isle of Man. Unfortunately, however, it council of any recommendations which it may make. contains flaws because the necessary consultation had not So for the hon. member for Castletown to say that we been taken forward as it should have been. are not here for the process of considering these matters is The way to respond to perceived flaws is to seek to strange, because, he in fact started it. It was his motion in amend the Bill. That is what the amendments that are before

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn K254 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

us seek to do. The amendment proposed by the hon. Ramsey, that his business, or something that he may well member for Ramsey seeks to address what he perceives to favour more, is more acceptable to this hon. House than a be an issue of public concern: the role of the Bishop. I private member's Bill, no matter what the subject? The would agree that, because the implications of this only test of that can come from the reaction of hon. constitutional reform, which had not been consulted upon members. I accept that that is probably going to be in the required depth, it is appropriate in respect of the demonstrated very, very shortly indeed, but it is a hard- Bishop to say that it is premature at this time to make fought right for such motions to be put before this hon. needlessly a change which does not command wide public House. In actual fact, if it was so fatuous a notion to have support. this Bill, there has been plenty of opportunity for it to be We are here to govern by consent. Atthe end of the day, rejected previously, but we are standing here at the clauses I do not believe that this particular element of clause 1 is stage now and we are seeing some of the amendments that necessary at this stage. It may well be possible to adopt it made a 10-foot fax enter my premises via the phone the after consultation and clarification of the role of the Bishop other day when I foolishly asked for a second copy of the in the context of a properly thought out scheme of agenda, being withdrawn left, right and centre. constitutional reform. For that reason, I will be supporting So who is looking silly now? In fact, these have all been the amendment and will be looking very carefully at all printed, occupied the time of the members addressing them the amendments to the clauses that have been laid down in - me included - and now they appear to be coming to an effort to address some of the flaws contained within nought, with the exception of the hon. colleague for this Bill. Ramsey, Mr Singer. I thank my hon. colleague from Garff, Mr Rodan, The Speaker: I call upon Mr Singer to respond to the because, he put his finger on it. He said that this was not a amendment. private maverick member standing up with some notion that he has hatched up, but that the proposal comes after Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I first of all considerable public disquiet about the election of the thank the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson, Legislative Council. I would remind hon. members for seconding the amendment and for his support? respectfully that Council members are drawing a similar I certainly enjoyed listening to the debate, but I think salary for doing the work in that Chamber which reflects a that most of it had nothing to do with my amendment. similar endeavour for the salary which members in this There is, therfore, very little to reply to, other than to say hon. House are taking. Do not try to tell me, Mr Speaker, to Sir Miles that I think that if we are talking about the that the public are not disquieted about that. They are seeing principle of the Bishop's position and you agreed with the people who are virtually without a purpose, although I do possibility that the diocese could well disappear, then I not refer to them - quite as insultingly as my hon. colleague look forward to support on this particular amendment, even for Onchan did when he called them the chamber of the if you are going to throw everything else away. dead. There is no doubt that on some occasions we have All we learnt from Mr Karran was that public views needed the reins to be drawn. In this last three months, we make him physically sick; I think that was his total are seeing now a proliferation of occasions when the contribution to the particular debate. Other than that, Legislative Council has been riding to the rescue to remedy everything else seemed to be part of discussing the whole flawed legislation which is sneaking through this House. Bill, so I would like to thank Mr Brown and Mr Rodan for It is a good job they are there at the moment, because indicating their support for the amendment. otherwise we would have been right in the cart. That is apart from the fact that we can actually at the moment get The Speaker: I now call upon the mover to reply. Mr one Bill pulled up because of recent developments - I refer, Cannell. of course, to adoption. I know that I am shooting myself in the foot with that Mr Cannell: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. The first thing argument, but the truth of it is that there is public disquiet I would like to refute is the preposterous claim of my hon. about the fact that a number of members, at the whim of colleague for Onchan, Mr Karran, that my presentation of elected members of the House of Keys, are putting upstairs the Bill today was tantamount to showing a white flag. for considerable salaries people who are not actually worth There are, of course, times when you have to admit defeat the money, I am afraid, in some cases. Not all of them are and that may well happen at a later stage, but I am still in like that, of course, but some just view it as tantamount to there pitching at the moment because I believe in the Bulrhenny. principle. I would have thought that any private member- That is the case, so when we come along and say that providing he adheres to the proper procedure - has a hard- the public are not interested in this, Geoff Cannell stands fought democratic right to come along with a Bill, a motion, alone. That is not right and there is one thing that my worst an amendment or anything else that is within the proper critics will know that, they can rely upon me for: I shall be parliamentary structure, present it and test his opinion . vehemently pointing out those people who have pledged One thing I certainly would not accept for a moment is their support previously, but pay lip service to the election that this type of item is so worthless that, in fact, the hon. of the Legislative Council. That includes the hon. colleague member is supposed to withdraw it, beetle off and let the for Rushen, who did at least admit that he had that in his allegedly more important business take precedence. On thoughts. I hope in fact that they are going to tell the public whose pretext does he beg to assume, the hon. member for that they condone this system. Fine, that is what democratic

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K255

government is all about, but certainly there is public yet where the Speaker comes along and says to me, 'Look, disquiet about that. we have to get this Bill through today because it is There is a parallel between the withdrawal of the vote absolutely top-whack urgent.' remember standing up not of the Attorney-General and that of the Lord Bishop. I am all that long ago and giving way to something that was afraid I am unable to be convinced by all the arguments to allegedly of national importance, but how did the members the contrary. The role of the Archbishop of Sodor and Man honour that? Enough of them walked out to mean that the in the Legislative Council in Tynwald has been the subject vote in Tynwald to allow that debate to proceed fell. Is of a paper prepared by Claire Faulds, the Vicar-General of that the way that people should be treated? I think not. Sodor and Man, with - by an amazing coincidence, they There has been a lot of talk about Christianity and the have the same surname - the editor of The Isle of Man Bishop, and what is going to happen. The bolt of lightning Church Leader. They concluded that the proposals for will undoubtedly strike me when I am away from reform do not take account of the fact that the Bishopis everybody else in here. I have even been told in my own position as a member of Tynwald is derived from a unique church, in my constituency, that I am threatened with losing role of the Bishop of Sodor and Man and an ancient a whole lot of votes for it. Let me tell you that, apart from freeholder. the fact that that was perpetrated by somebody who should This is the 21st century, hon. members. The Bishop is know better, it is the churches of the Island which are losing the sole remaining representative in Tynwald of the ancient the support in general. I deplore that as well. I am very freeholders or barons of the Island. The Bishop of Sodor sorry to see it, but it is no use pretending that the Christian and Man has a seat in Tynwald not simply because he is a congregations of the churches of the Isle of Man represent bishop in the Church of England, but because he is a baron the majority of people of the Isle of Man any more. I regret of the Bishopis Barony in the Isle of Man and, as such, a to say that that is no longer the case. Lord Spiritual. The Bishop's Barony was specifically I say to the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, that I do excluded from the active settlement in 1703 and from the not need to apologise for taking the business time of this active revestment in 1765. House on this one. I do not think that I bring forward all All right, that is tradition, yes, but for heaven's sake, sorts of fatuous notions. For my hon. colleague for Onchan we need everybody to be accountable. I am very grateful to say that the Bill is nonsense, when I have stood in this for the support of the hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, hon. House and Tynwald and listened to some of the who quite rightly pointed out that there have been numerous absolute poppycock which he has perpetrated (Members: tests where Tynwald decisions have rested on one vote to Hear, hear) and wasted vast amounts of time (Interjections), swing them, and that does not necessarily happen when not least in including the ridiculous notion that the Queen there is a full house of the membership of course. It can might appear at the Bar of the Court to oppose a Royal also equally apply that if there is a different call on votes, Assent. (Interj ections and laughter) It is his right to do so the vote does not count. It is a question of how many people and he has gone through the same procedures as me. On attend, of course, and an odd number of members voting. many occasions, though I have totally disagreed, I have Mr Quine, the hon. member for Ayre, again a man of had to be the person to second it purely to get it onto the principle, has fought alone on many occasions. I am hopeful floor because I recognise the right that he has to bring that he will continue to do so for a considerable time, but forward such proposals. Hours and hours we have spent he put the position succinctly as well and pointed to the on things like that, and more power to his elbow. position of the select committee which is running on this The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, moved the matter. amendment to this first clause - and I must say if this is the I sit here, but perhaps you try to con me. You tell me first clause (laughter) I wonder how long the debate will that a Council of Ministers select committee was set up to be. You have to remember it is foolhardy in the extreme to examine this and that it was working its way through it. I even contemplate that the Lord Bishop of the Isle of Man am sure that it was and that its other duties allowed it to or any other diocese can speak for the entire church of the meet fairly infrequently, but it would not have reported in nation, county diocese or whatever. Perhaps, like people time for this to not run out of time either. Exactly the same who are drowning, they clutch at straws. Perhaps the thing would have happened, so it is no use telling me 'Oh, deadliest enemies unite to save their lives because I am the select committee has got this in hand and you were quite flattered by the amount of column inches in the premature with your Bill'. I do not mean to be insulting, Church Leader and all the papers. Although some people but with the amount of work that it has got on its plates, in here tell me it is a one-man band, they must have been the chances are that it would have run completely out of panicking. Even the Legislative Council itself came up time with even bringing forth the preliminary report. How virtually overnight with the famous Bill, talking of things does that leave me, with a manifesto pledge to address it, like senators. So it recognises that it is done for eventually. with 10 months until the election? I had to bring forward When you go along to the election, tell the electorate 'Oh my proposal to honour my commitment and I reserve a no, I voted against this. I prefer to retain the Legislative right to do so. I will not stand here and say that the Bills Council and the Bishop'. Why not go the whole hog and that are further items on the agenda are more important. bring back the Governor and a few other worthies of the They are more important in some eyes, and there are Isle of Man? Why not? There is no different claim to it undoubtedly in the legislative programme for the rest of whatever. the year many items which will be of great interest for the I was not expecting Sir Miles to be anything other than Isle of Man to adopt. However, I have not seen anything less than sympathetic to it, although he did not refer to the

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn K256 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

dustbin on this occasion (Laughter) in terms of destiny of out that Christianity is the preserve of the Bishop. I would this Bill. I got the impression that he was less than suggest that hon. members in here are just as Christian- overwhelmed by it, but again that is his right and he has like in their approach in the main. That is not always the considerably more political experience than I have. case and I include myself in that, but Christianity does not The hon. member, Mr Gilbey, also supported that and have to be expressed with a purple frock and a dog collar. said that there was government business that needed to be Christianity is what you do, what you think and how you got on with. Well of course there is, and this is part of it. act. Most of the people in this Isle of Man - and I hope This is government business, like it or loath it. most hon. members - approach their life with a Christian- The hon. member for Castletown, Mr Brown, claimed like standard. (Intejrecti ons) that this was the destruction of the sovereignty of the Keys. You might have said that this debate should never have He quite rightly said that I would never compromise that- taken place, Mr Speaker and hon. members, because in but this is not the destruction of anything. This is change actual fact you are deciding something yourself. In any which, some people are unable to grasp. I accept that some other area, you stand up and declare an interest, but here of the methods that are employed in this Bill might not be we are discussing our own future. You might have said favoured by the select committee, but at least it is on the that. I am afraid to say that we appear to have been clouded table and is up and running as a subject for debate. It is a here. Perhaps it is my own fault. We have a clause which bit more passion that we need in here, instead of lumbering amalgamates two items in the first clause. That actually through each Tuesday with nobody having anything seeks here, as I said, to convert the system of governing particularly controversial to say, although I am not creating the Isle of Man and also to remove the vote of the last of controversy for the sake of it. the barons. The removal of the Bishop's vote in either the It is a decision which can be taken quite easily. I have Legislative Council or Tynwald, and especially in both no doubt that it will be, but I will not go down with a would, it is said, seriously erode the status of his position white flag flying. I will perhaps go down bloodied, but I in Tynwald. That is not so. He would be there speaking. I will be unbowed. I stand on my feet square to my principle. think it was the hon. member for Peel who said quite rightly I think that I have support from the number of telephone that anybody with an opinion is bound to have influence. calls and letters that I have had. There were not quite as There is nothing better than to say something in the court many as those sent as part of the concerted effort of a when you are trying to convince the jury and then you are newspaper which actually mounted an active campaign; told you should not have said that. That is implanted in the of course, it had a right to that. jury members'inds and there is no way back. Let me conclude by saying that the public will eventually This paper says that a reduction in the role of public demand that the practice of allowing non-elected people importance of the Bishop would impact adversely on the into the Legislative Council and Tynwald will cease diocese of Sodor and Man. The whole thing will go; the ultimately, in the same way that there will have to be tents are going to be folded up and they are all going to another item which I am associated with - local government disappear to Carlisle or Liverpool. Again, there is no reform. I am not too sure which will come first. I remain evidence to suggest that. In fact, I would say that the to be convinced that I shall actually be still on this planet opposite is probably true. They would probably prefer not when it occurs. (Interj ections) I am afraid that that is to have the Bishop tied up sitting laboriously through many unlikely because of the attitude of those who are unwilling items. Incidentally, when has the Lord Bishop of the Isle to see what is required because they are blinkered and seek of Man had such a great influence on the proceedings that to preserve the present position. I do not mean to be we have all been converted. When has an opinion which insulting, and I accept the comments that have been made he held up to us when he made a momentous speech swayed by hon. members are as sincere as my attempt to move us religiously or morally or anything else? We have this through. Mr Speaker, I now formally move clause 1 appreciated his occasional contributions, but a lot of time of the Constitution Bill 2000. is spent by the Lord Bishop in the Council and particularly in Tynwald when you might argue that it would have been The Speaker: Now, hon. members, to that clause we better employed in another direction. have one amendment standing in the name of the member Ifanything is needed at the moment, it is sheer graft to for Ramsey, Mr Singer. try to prevent the sinking of the Church of England. One of its own vicars has admitted that we are only a generation The Speaker: You are aware of the amendment. Those away from extinction of the church movement in the Isle in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. of Man as we have known it. We have loved it and we still do. It grieves me to go along to the parish church in my Adivision was called for and voting resulted as follows: own constituency for a harvest home service. You could not get in 20 years ago, but we now see only 50 people For: Messrs Gilbey, Rodan, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Rimington, standing there. That is awful, quite awful, but that is what Brown, Houghton, Henderson, Cretney, Duggan, we are up against. It is spirit we need, or a bit of go, or Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Messrs Shimmin, Downie, backbone. That is all that we are trying to do - to make the Singer, Bell, Corkill, Gelling and the Speaker - 18 whole of the Legislative Council accountable to the people. That seems to be about the size of it. One final rejoinder Against: Mr Quine, Si r Miles Walker, Mrs Hannan, Messrs is that I resent the fact that some people have tried to make Karran and Cannell - 5

Constitution Bill —Clauses Considered —Bill Withdrawn HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K257

The Speaker: Hon. members, the amendment carries in Manx waters. Powers to board or search a vessel other 18 votes in favour, 5 votes against. I now put the clause as than a Manx vessel can be exercised only if there is reason amended. those in favour please say aye; against, no. The to suspect that something has been, is being or will be noes have it. landed just off the Isle of Man.'

division was called for and voti ng resulted as follows: The Speaker: Clause 1, sir.

For: Messrs Quine, Rodan, Cretney, Duggan, Mrs Cannell, Mr Downie: I will now deal with clause 1, Mr Speaker. Messrs Singer, Cannell and Gelling - 8 Clause 1 - clause widens the scope of the power to make emergency orders under the 1986 Act. It will cover not Against: Mr Gilbey, Sir Miles Walker, Mrs Crowe, Messrs only an escape of substances but any circumstances which Rimington, Brown, Houghton, Henderson, Braidwood, are likely to create a hazard to human health through human Shimmin, Downie, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell, Karran, consumption of food. It creates limited criminal liability Corkill and the Speaker - 15 for breach of an order, for acts or emissions within the Isle of Man and Manx waters. An emergency order can The Speaker: Hon. members, the clause as amended designate an area of sea outside Manx waters as an area in fails to carry 8 votes in favour, 15 votes against. I now say which, for example, fishing is prohibited, but only for the to the mover, bearing in mind the centrality of clause 1 to purposes of preventing fish caught there being landed on the whole Bill, do you wish to continue, sir? the Island. Sub-clause (1) is introductory. Sub-clause (2) widens Mr Cannell: I think, Mr Speaker, that, not because I the cases in which the department may make an emergency feel it serves the best interests of those who have advanced order designating an area in which emergency prohibitions the case that other legislation is of more importance, but are enforced to cover all circumstances which are likely to on balance, I shall accept the suspension of this Bill at this create a hazard to human health through human juncture. consumption of food. From the FEPA of 1985, substituted by the Food Safety Members: Hear, hear. Act 1990, sub-clause (3) requires the emergency order to refer to the circumstances which give rise to the emergency prohibitions. Food (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Sub-clause (4) gives a defence to a charge of contravening an prohibition, that the offence Bill —Clauses Considered emergency took place outside the Isle of Man and Manx Waters in place of a more restricted defence limited to movements Hon. we move The Speaker: members, on to item 13, of food et cetera on foreign vessels. the Food Provisions) Bill (Emergency (Amendment) for Sub-clause (5) requires the making of an emergency consideration of clauses. Hon. member for Douglas West, order affecting the area of sea to be notified to the Home Mr Downie. Office for information only. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the clause 1 stands part of the Bill. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to give the members some background, it is some time now since the The Speaker: Mr Henderson. second reading of the Bill. The Bill relates to the Food (Emergency Provisions) Act 1986. The 1986 Act was Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my passed with great speed to deal with the Chernobyl crisis. remarks. The Bill was introduced into the Keys on the 1st July 1986 and passed both branches on that day. Royal Assent was Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I would just like to given on the 15th July. It was closely based on part 1 of ask the minister whether as regards food and food standards the UK Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, known the EU will take any sort of position? Who will make the as the FEPA, and enables the Department of Local criteria as far as hazards to health is concerned? Can we Government and the Environment to make emergency make our own criteria or do we have to accept what is orders to prevent pollution arising from an escape of a imposed us as far as hazards to health is concerned, from substance. The substance we were concerned about back the likes of the EU or other places? in 1986 was caused by the Chernobyl crisis. The measure was to prevent radioactive substances from entering the The Speaker: Mover to reply, Mr Downie. food chain. This Bill, hon. members, seeks to make an amendment Mr Downie: Yes, the Department of Local Government that was sought in 1994. As a trade off it also amends the and the Environment has extensive powers to deal with 1986 Act to remove the extra territorial elements to which food safety. The Food Emergency Provisions Act and other objection was taken in 1986, 1994 as follows: 'No act or pieces of legislation which deal with food safety such as emissions outside the Island and Manx territorial waters the Food Act. What was omitted back in 1986 was our can amount to a contravention of an emergency order. ability to prevent suspected substances such as Powers to board or search a vessel can be exercised only contaminated shell fish from being landed in the Isle of

Food (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill —Clauses Considered K258 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

Man or causing a risk to our own fishing industry. The The Speaker: Mr Henderson. Bill will enable us to have policing measures ourselves without having to rely on someone else. Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: The motion is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour please say aye; against, no. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that clause The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2, sir. 4 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. That Mr Downie: This clause restricts the powers of officers completes the clauses stage of the Food (Emergency to board and search vessels so that they can be exercised Provisions)(Amendments) Bill. only in Manx waters and in relation to a vessel other than a Manx vessel, only if there is reason to suspect that something has been, is being or will be landed from it into Local Government (Miscellaneous the Isle of Man. It also makes amendments consequential Provisions) Bill —Consideration of to clause l. Sub-clause (1) is introductory, sub-clause (2) make Clauses Commenced consequential amendments from the FEPA. Sub-clause (3) restricts the powers of officers to board and search vessels The Speaker: We now move on to item 14, Local so that they can be exercised only in Manx waters, officers Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, consideration may search a vessel other than a Manx vessel only if they of clauses. Mr Gilbey, clause 1, sir. have reason to suspect that something has been, is being or will be landed in the Isle of Man that will cause arisk to Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, this clause will fill a gap in our foodstuffs. the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 which allow for the alteration of local government boundaries by The Speaker: Mr Henderson. enabling an order for that purpose to make supplemental and consequential provision. Section 6 of that Act enables Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my the Department of Local Government and the Environment remarks. to make an order, after a public enquiry, and subject to Tynwald approval, altering the boundary of a town or The Speaker: the motion is that clause 2 stand part of village district. Under section 6 (3) of that Act the order the Bill. All those in favour please say aye; against, no. can include provision for the membership of any authority The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3, sir. affected, the retirement or appointment of members of any authority, joint boards, joint committee et cetera affected, Mr Downie: Clause 3, Mr Speaker, This clause makes the dissolution of any joint board or joint committee minor and consequential amendment of the 1986 Act. Sub- affected, the alteration or abolition of a special district for clause (1) is a consequential amendment from the Food rating purposes, the transfer of property rights and liabilities Environment and Protection Agency 1985; section 2(3) is of any authority affected and a procedure for the settlement amended. Sub-clause (2) amends various definitions in the of disputes. 1986 Act; paragraphs 8(a) and (c) are consequential on Sometimes, however, further provision needs to be made clause 1, (b) is consequential on (3), (d) and (e) update to give effect to the boundary change and it is necessary definitions consequentially on the replacement of the Food for special Acts to be passed for this purpose. This and Drugs Act 1963, by the Food Act 1996 and (f) is happened in 1993 in the case of Ramsey and similarly under consequential on the Merchant Shipping Registration 1995. previous legislation in 1952 in respect of Douglas, 1966 Sub-clause (3) repeals a spent transitional provision. I in respect of Castletown, 1970 in respect of Ramsey, 1971 beg to move clause 3 stands part of the Bill. in respect of Laxey and 1985 in respect of Douglas. This clause enables provision for the following matters The Speaker: Mr Henderson. to be included in a section 6 order, if required. First, adjustment of rates to give transitional relief for up to 10 Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my years. Secondly, alteration of a Keys constituency remarks. boundary. Thirdly, transitional provision for registers of electors. Fourthly, the cancelling or changing of any The Speaker: The motion is that clause 3 stand part of arrangements for the exercise of functions by one public the Bill. All those in favour please say aye; against, no. authority on behalf of another and the cancellation or - The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 4, sir. amendment of contracts for example, a contract between the parish authority and a private contractor for refuse Mr Downie: Clause 4, Mr Speaker. This clause gives collection. Then the extension of the area of operation of the Bill its short title. No commencement provision is any bye-law. Finally, the consequential amendment or included, the Bill will come into force when Royal Assent appeal of any enactment - that is, any primary or is announced by Tynwald, and that is covered by the subordinate legislation. All these are additional things that Interpretation Act 1976, section 10. I beg to move clause 4 need to be undertaken when boundaries are altered. The stands part of the Bill. aim is to enable it all to be included in one order rather

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K259 than having to bring in a secondary legislation. Mr Speaker, got a letter here, faxed, that is a copy of the one that went I beg to move. to Ramsey, dated the 19th January, to all local authorities. It says, 'a copy of the latest Bill which includes the Mr Quine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, aforementioned amendments will follow in the post'. Then s11'. it says that in addition there are other ones, a private member's Bill, and the details are as follows. It then asks The Speaker: Mr Karran. for replies before today's Keys. That seems obviously impossible. One would have Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, can I just ask the thought that the town clerks would have wished at least to hon. mover, the minister, whether there will be any have been able to consult their members. Obviously there restrictions as far as people getting their refuse removed has been no time at all. As they have been asked for because they are in areas that are unviable to do so? comments by the department I think they should be given adequate time for us all here to be able to take into account The Speaker: Mrs Hannan. those comments. The private members'mendments are totally new to the local authorities, which are the ones that Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I just are obviously affected by this Bill. Will the hon. minister wonder why it is necessary to introduce this instead of, as explain why he has had to bring forward the clauses today, happened in the past, individual legislation to alter without giving adequate time for the local authorities to boundaries. We ought to be very careful about eating up consult their members and reply to us? Would he feel it the countryside with town and village areas. The would be more democratic to delay this for at least two countryside is very precious and should gain as much weeks to give them a chance to reply to the letter of protection as we can possibly give it. We already have consultation that they have received, faxed on the 19th planning applications, local plans and all of that nature January? that can affect a local area. Only a small amount of people can take part in any sort of planning discussion, but I The Speaker: Minister to reply. wonder why it is necessary to bring in an order. I would have thought it preferable - and I would have thought Mr Gilbey: First, Mr Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. Government would have supported this as well - that any member for Ramsey is totally misled about this matter. major changes such as Douglas, Peel or Castletown The Bill was subject to enormous consultation back in the whatever encroaching onto a parish boundary should go Autumn. When we got the amendments from the hon. through three pieces of legislation. People should be able members for Onchan and the hon. member from Douglas, to appear at the bar, and it could be amended by the we felt it only right that the authorities should be made member. aware of them. That is the consultation regarding which I am not proposing an amendment to this, but I am they are complaining that they have not had enough time- concerned that this is creeping into major legislation. We over the amendments, not the substantive Bill. I have ample introduce orders instead of bills which are discussed at a proof that the Bill was commented on months ago. clauses stage, when all the ramifications can be spelt out. I totally agree with him about the need for consultation, It should be taken through this House as opposed to just and that is why I hope that he will join in voting against the one sitting of Tynwald. We ought to bear that in mind. amendments for which there has not been time to consult. For any government department bringing forward orders But I am sorry he has been misled regarding this. such as that, it is all very well consulting and having the The hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan does not want approval of one local authority and possibly the parish the country areas swallowed up. I apologise to her; I could commissioners. There is a bigger issue here, whereby the not have explained eloquently enough what this Bill is rates are going to be different in areas. I am expressing the doing. It does not alter the principles that come about when wider public interest and the concern that there is not going there are boundary alterations. Perhaps I should read again to be this general discussion, with a Bill coming through. what I have said at the beginning. 'This clause is to fill a It is just going to be an order, taken care of within the gap in the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 Department of Local Government and the Environment. which allow for the alteration of local government So I am concerned that we are doing away with a number boundaries. Section 6 of that Act, the existing Act, enables of issues coming before this House and being considered the Department of Local Government and the Environment in a step by step approach, as opposed to an order going to make an order but only after a public enquiry and only before Tynwald. subject to Tynwald approval, altering the boundary of a town or village district. Under section 6 (3), the order can The Speaker: Mr Singer. include provision for various things such as the retirement or appointment of members of any authority'. Mr Singer: Could I just make a general comment on However, there are some things that cannot be covered consultation of this Bill as it is now. The original in one order and need to be done separately. Those are the consultation did go out and amendments were made by ones that I read out. One is the adjustment of rates to give the department. I understand that the proposed amendments transitional relief. It is surely better to deal with all such by the department and the private members'mendments matters together. The really important thing is the principle only went out to local authorities on 19th January. I have of altering local government boundaries. I agree with her

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Commenced K260 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 that we do not want more and more of the country The Speaker: Mr Houghton. swallowed up. I hope that she will remember that and will not want Peel to swallow up parts of German and Patrick. Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure hon. I entirely agree with her, but these are purely supplementary members will recall that clause 3 as it stands in its proposed matters being covered in this clause, supplementary to the form will provide local authorities with powers, subject to main principle which is already covered by existing the approval of the Department of Local Government and legislation. the Environment to provide offices and other premises for The hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran made another a number of bodies, including any unincorporated point. I totally sympathise with him that it is most association of which one or more departments and one or unfortunate that there are some areas where authorities do more authorities are members. not arrange for the collection of refuse and people have to During the consultation process with local authorities, go a considerable distance, taking their bins, rather than the department received a request that it would be helpful the refuse collection people coming to pick them up at ifthe new provisions also included companies incorporated their home. Unfortunately this happens all too often. But under the Companies Acts 1931 and which included there is nothing in this that should cause more of those members representing government departments or local problems - in fact, I would have thought the reverse would authorities. br true. As areas do come into larger authorities and where The department has accepted this suggestion and areas are developed and then come into larger authorities, believes it is worthy of support, although it has recognised it is likely that the larger authorities will arrange refuse that this provision would be of most immediate effect to collection. Douglas Corporation within the context of the Douglas I hope that I have answered the points of the three hon. Development Partnership. The provisions may also prove members and I beg to move that clause 1 stands part of the beneficial to other large local authorities throughout the Bill. Island, which may seek to enter into partnership arrangements with the private sector. In particular, as part The Speaker: The motion is that clause 1 stand part of of an initiative to enhance their towns or villages. So to the Bill. All those in favour please say aye; against, no. that end, sir, I beg to move the amendment to clause 3 The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Clause 2, sir. stand part of the Bill:

Mr Gilbey: Clause 2 is the simple one, Mr Speaker. Page 3, line 10, after head (ii)insert— This clause enables the present 4p rate limit on expenditure by local authorities on entertainments to be varied by order "(iia) any company incorporated under the of the Department of Local Government and the Companies Act 1931 of which one or more Environment. It is, in fact, interesting that the 4p was Departments (or a nominee of one or more substituted for 9p by the Decimal Currency (Isle of Man) Departments) and one or more local authorities (or a nominee of one or more Act 1970. So that is just an example of how out of date it " is and, as I have said, the clause enables the limit to be local authorities) are members; varied by order subject to Tynwald approval, either second. generally or as respects particular authorities. I have various Mr Karran: I beg to letters from members and from authorities asking that there The Speaker: Mrs Hannan. should be flexibility and that all authorities should not be limited to an exact amount of 4p. Mrs Hannan: The Bill is to do with the offices and other accommodation. I thought the member in moving Mr Quiri: I second and reserve my remarks. said it could join in with companies and other bodies to enhance Douglas Development. Has this been introduced The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that that to recognise the work that Douglas 2000 has done, or in clause 2 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour please what way is this amendment being introduced? I can see say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. that the clause is related to providing buildings and to Clause sir. 3, charity and maybe medical, dental or opthalmic boards, but this is companies. I have no problem with the clause Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, this clause gives local as written. It was just the comment that he made with regard authorities power, subject to the approval of the Department to enhancing the place. of Local Government and the Environment, to provide Is it organisations such as Douglas 2000 the mover is offices and other premises for the following bodies: other talking about, or is it providing office and other public sector authorities; any partnership between one or accommodation, because if that is the case, why should more departments and one or more local authorities, for office accommodation be provided under the rates or example, Douglas 2000; charitable organisations and, very supported by the tax with regard to companies? I can importantly, doctors, dentists, opticians and other health understand some of these areas here but, in the public professionals. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. interest, you are providing some charities, a department, statutory board or somewhere for people to pay rates or Mr Quine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. something like that. You are wanting to encourage a dental

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K261 practice into the area or a medical practice, but I am not the 1990 Public Health Act. Subsection (3)(a) gives any sure about companies and I wonder if the member could person, already having power of entry on lands for the spell that out when he is winding up his amendment. Thank purposes of the 1990 Act, power to inspect records relating you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. to any activity carried on on the lands, including computer records. The Speaker: Mr Houghton to reply to the amendment. Subsection (3)(b) gives any person already having power of entry on land for the purposes of the 1990 Public Mr Houghton: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very Health Act power to take samples of the land, or anything pleased to assist the hon. member in her queries. This was on it, or in the vicinity of it. an application to the department by Douglas Corporation Subsection (3)(c) makes it an offence to obstruct a to allow the Douglas development partnership, Douglas person inspecting records under clause 3(a) or taking 2000, to become a guaranteed company and afford it the samples under 3(b). flexibilities that exist as it would operate as a company Subsection (3)(d) applies the 1985 Act, section 36 (2), under the Companies Act. to any information obtained under 3(a) or (b) and makes When this was considered by the department, we unauthorised disclosure of any trade secret discovered in thought, 'Well, if this was to be so, obviously in the case the exercise of any power of entry an offence punishable of the Bill, it would allow then the flexibility for other without up to two years and/or a fine. large organisations themselves, similar to Douglas 2000 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 4 stand part of in the future as to how they operate, for themselves to be a the Bill. guaranteed company and enjoy the circumstances that being a company, for the sake of this particular issue, would Mr Houghton: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. provide. Thank you. The Speaker: Mrs Cannell, Douglas East. The Speaker: Minister to reply. Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to move Mr Gilbey: The hon. member for Peel said, 'offices an amendment, Mr Speaker, to this particular clause of the and accommodation'. Yes, because Douglas 2000 needs Bill. Before doing so, however, I would like to just refer to to have an office to operate from because they have an the Public Health Act 1990, to which the hon. minister executive who does a very valuable job for them. The point also referred. Just by way of explanation for hon. members, of my hon. colleague's amendment is that the Bill is drafted he said that 'individuals already the power to enter the towards unincorporated companies, et cetera. land under this particular section'. It is section 35- Powers We want to be sure that they can also have a company to enter on land - and is described as a community incorporated under the Companies Act 1931, which is what physician, inspector or a person authorised in writing. So they now apparently want to do. That is the sole purpose we have a physician, an inspector or a person so authorised. and the Department of Local Government, other Now, the minister is quite correct in that under this government departments and Douglas Corporation want particular section 35, a person so authorised can enter, has to be able to assist Douglas 2000 or the Douglas Project, I got the power to enter land. However, under section think they are now called, in having these offices. I hope 35(3)(c), it says 'the person empowered to enter on land that hon. members would feel this is very worth while. It under subsection (2) shall not if the land is occupied does not only apply to Douglas, of course, but would apply demand admission to the land as of right unless notice of to similar arrangements made throughout the Island. I hope the intended entry has been served on the occupier not that hon. members will support the amendment of my hon. less than 24 hours before the demand. Equally ifit is shown colleague in the department, Mr Houghton, and support to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace that admission the clause. to any land has been either refused, or refusal admission is apprehended or the land is unoccupied or the occupier of The Speaker: Hon. members, you have the amendment the land is temporarily absent or the case is one of urgency standing in the name of Mr Houghton standing before you. or an application for permission would defeat the object Those in favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have of entry then there is reasonable grounds for entry on land it. The ayes have it. for a purpose mentioned in subsection (2). However a I now put to you clause 3 as amended. Those in favour warrant would have to be authorised by a justice of the please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have peace.'e it. have a situation where the hon. mover referred to Clause 4,sir. this as a new power. It is, because in the explanatory memorandum, power to take samples gives additional Mr Gilbey: Clause 4. This clause, Mr Speaker, gives powers to inspect records and to take samples to a person additional powers to inspect records and take samples to a who has power to enter on land for the purpose of enforcing - person who I cannot stress this too much - already has any provision of the Public Health Act 1990. Earlier on in power to enter land for the purposes of enforcing any this particular debate on this particular Bill, a concern was provision of the Public Health Act 1990, but no other Act. expressed about the lack of consultation undertaken with This refers specifically to the Public Health Act 1990. This local authorities. We heard the minister's response to that, clause adds new subsections (3)(a) to (d) to section 97 of in saying that there was comprehensive consultation.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Commenced K262 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

However, there was very little in terms of the two you take within 24 hours to remove or eradicate it will be amendments which are being proposed today - one in my unsuccessful. Toxic waste remains in the environment - in name and one in the hon. Mr Karran's name. the soil, sedimentor water- fora very, very long time. So That may well be the case, but the facts are that no any officer, or physician or person appointed by the consultation was held with the Farmers Union, absolutely department going out to take a sample in that instance none whatsoever. The Farmers Union, which represents would take the sampling accordingly. Ifthat meant taking the agricultural industry, which equates to 78 per cent of the sample deeper down in the ground or the water, it would the total of land in the Isle of Man in agricultural use, that be done. Nevertheless, if it is toxic waste, there would be is 145,000 acres, was not consulted. Yet we have a new traces there for testing. power affecting privately owned land. Given that 78 per Why does the department seek to have these new cent of it is in agricultural use, private ownership, one powers? I have not heard a satisfactory explanation yet to would have thought that the department would have been actually make the case for these additional powers to take, prudent and consulted with the Farmers Union. sample and inspect records. So I looked to the United Unfortunately, the said union only became aware of the Kingdom, because invariably when orders come before situation when it was reading a local newspaper, where it this hon. House and another place, they are usually was talking about the provisions laid down in this particular modelled, particularly in public health terms, on UK bill before us. Rather unfortunate, I would suggest. legislation. However, in looking at this particular issue When representations were made by the Farmers Union today there is nothing contained within the Public Health to the department, it lead to a meeting on January 5th where Act 1936 which is effective today in the United Kingdom. the Farmers Union were under the impression, perhaps There is also no comparable clause in the Local picking up the wrong signals from the hon. minister at an Government Act 1985. There is no provision within UK earlier meeting, that they would, in fact, consider an legislation for these increased powers that the department amendment to address this situation of being able to just seeks to take samples, to give an officer the power to take go on to the land without giving an explanation to the owner sample without giving an explanation to the landowner. of the land of the reason for the visit, if indeed they are Perhaps when the minister is doing his summing up, he wanting to take a sample. might be able to inform us of the precise reason for Farmers believe that the Bill as written will lead to a including this particular new section. cultural change within the Department of Local I believe it is incumbent upon a government department, Government and the Environment. However, the ifan officer is wanting to get onto private land for whatever department has defended itself by assuring the farmers that reason. Ifhe wants to go on to take samples, I think that he it will remain firm practice, to which the department is should let the farmer know that he is wanting to take committed, for all officers of that department to seek the samples and he wants to test something or other. After all, approval of the landowner before entering land or their he only has to give notice 24 hours before access is premises for the purposes of carrying out their duties and required. Of course, provisions are already in place under terms of the Public Health Act 1990 and they will continue section 35 in terms of the JP, so we cannot hear an argument to inform the landowner of the reasons why access is surely against this comfort factor for the farmers that it required. would be in the public interest not to tell, because that is If that is going to be a code of conduct within the already provided for in the Act, if it shown to the department, why is the department not prepared to include satisfaction of a justice of the peace. There is a series, it in legislation a comfort measure to the landowners, to the runs from (a) right the way down to (f), and the public farmers. Of course, officers within government interest is protected there. The emergency situation is departments come and go, as we, as politicians, come and protected there. go and ministers come and go (AMember: Hear, hear.) Ifthere is an illegal dumping or fly tipping of a particular and so a code of conduct established today may well not matter, which gives concern to the public, there is provision be adhered to in 5, 6,7, 8, 9 or 10 years'ime. Ifthere is no under the Public Health Act under clause 35 for the officer, provision within the legislation to give a reason why you physician or person appointed to make a case for the are wanting to take a sample, no reason shall be warrant without the requirement of notifying the landowner forthcoming if it is not included in legislation. and make his inspection and do whatever is required, The department may well argue and say, 'Ah well, we whether taking samples or whatever. That provision is there may want to take a sample. There may be a dumping of for those urgent cases, those that are regarded as emergency toxic waste and, if we exercise the powers under the 1990 situations and those situations that are regarded to be in Act and accept this amendment, we would therefore have the public interest. to tip the landowner off that within 24 hours we want to What is the difference? Again I will repeat that section come and take a sample and explain the reason for taking 35 (3)(c) says that 'a person so empowered to enter on that sample.'t is samples that I am primarily concerned land shall not, if the land is occupied, demand admission about at the moment, not necessarily the inspection of to the land as a right, unless notice of the intended entry records or computer equipment. has been served on the occupier not less than 24 hours It may be suggested in the department's defence that to before the demand.'ll I am asking for in this particular give 24 hours'otice would enable that particular amendment is in compliance with that. Is it not reasonable landowner to cover up that toxic waste. I would suggest to be given a reason? Is it not a reasonable request to have that, if there is a dumping of toxic waste, whatever measure before you a reason for that person coming on to your land?

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K263

I would suggest that the vast majority of farmers on this lorry full of chemicals overturns on a country road and Island are good farmers. They are guardians of this land, that some of those chemicals go onto the adjoining land or they look after the land (Interjecrion) - I said the vast into the water courses. Does he not have provisions now majority of. Battery farming, of course, is a different thing. where they can be properly analysed and looked at or is I am talking about agricultural land. what he is doing today indicating to this House that his We have to look at why the department is putting in a legislation does not have that element and is this reason provision which is not contained within the VKlegislation? why he is looking for this amendment? Why is that? My belief that this Bill was formulated to My view is simple. If there is a problem on anyone' help Malew Commissioners to obtain land and that is land, irrespective of whether they are a farmer, an ordinary referred to in the explanatory memorandum, clause 2. It landowner, a householder or somebody on a building site, seems to me that the department has gone a little heavy- I would think if there is a requirement to take sampling handed in including things within this Bill that really do when there is a risk from illegal tipping, disposal of not belong there, but have been seen perhaps as an chemicals and harmful substances, I do not see that it would opportunity when looking to satisfy the requirements of be necessarily unreasonable to give a reason. I would have Malew Commissioners of including all sorts of other thought that having obtained a warrant to access the land, measures, which I suggest are not needed and are not the person could say, 'We have suspicion that something required. We are covered for pollution incidents, in has been deposited here which is harmful to health and we particular, under the Public Health Act, under clause 35. I are entering the land under this legislation.'n fact, if a wish to move an amendment that affects line 39 and would police officer was to go onto premises, he gives a caution as a reason. be inserted after 3(b) and would be referred to '(3BA)'nd and he also gives, I understand, form of it would read:- Now, the other thing I am a little concerned about is that in clause 4, line 39, there appears to be a catch-all 'Except where his entry on the landis concernedis phrase that includes 'in the vicinity of that land.'f we are authorised by a warrant under subsection (4) ofthe said referring to a farm, surrounding farms, or various holdings section 35, a person may nor exercise the power around about, is that, in fact, a catch-all or are we in a conferred by subsection (3B) unless notice of his situation where an officer, for whatever reason, can wander intention to do so, stating the reason therefore, has been from place to place? I mean, what is 'in the vicinity of that served on the occupier not less than 24 hours before land'? It needs to be defined. the exercise of the power. I can understand the requirement for the department to have a sampling regime in the interest of public health, 'hat is already contained within the Public Health Act but at the same time, I have to have some sympathy with and so I beg to move, Mr Speaker. the landowner. If this clause does go through today and the amendment is not carried, there need to be clear Mr Rimington: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. The issue guidelines issued by the department and backed up by a is fairly straightforward. It is not really changing anything statement from the minister. I think that is all that is that the Department of Local Government is putting required. forward in its power to take samples. It is not changing There is concern about this clause both in the agricultural anything in the existing powers under the Public Health community and in other areas. Ifwe get a clear undertaking Act and the structure of such persons who are authorised from the minister today, that reasons will be given for the to enter land. All it is asking for, is that in the particular requirement to take samples, that will put the whole issue case where 24 hours'otice is given, not in the situation to rest. where you consider there is a threat to public health and Any landowner can be caught on this Island. It is not people need to enter that land for purposes of making a necessarily a problem or the fault of a landowner himself. prosecution or whatever, where you would then go through We see lots of fly tipping going on and if somebody went the act of getting a JP and a warrant, but where there is a along a country lane and disposed of a lot of chemicals on need to enter that land is to ask that the reason be stated. to farmers'and, they would be very concerned. In a small That is the only difference in the amendment that is put community like ours, if you want to get on to the land, you forward. For when you are giving 24 hours'otice that the need to be up front and, in my view, you need to be in a reason is stated, that is a perfectly reasonable request and position where you can explain why you want to take those does not have any bearing on the issues of prosecutions or particular samples, not give 24 hours'otice. If you need public health, which would normally be dealt with coming to go, you need to go then and do the job then (AMember: through section 4 of the 1990 Public Health Act, where a Hear, hear.). At the same time, you need to have the warrant would be implied. agricultural community and other people with you.

The Speaker: Mr Downie. The Speaker: Minister.

Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 4- I would Mr Gilbey: I am speaking, Mr Speaker, to the just like to ask the minister if he can advise the House, if amendment. The department is firmly opposed to the under the provisions of the Public Health Act 1990, that amendment proposed by the hon. member for East his department, or an officer of his department, has powers Douglas, as we believe it would weaken the powers of the to actually take samples? Let us say for argument's sake a government and that of the Island's local authorities to

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Commenced K264 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 protect the health of the public. It would also, should it be MNFU present had obviously been under the impression accepted, send a very poor message to those whom we that the powers were more general. However, others felt represent regarding our views on the vital matter of public that there should be a requirement for prior approval before health. entering land and also that a reason for doing so should be Mr Speaker, I will now outline to hon. members how given. The legislative draftsman confirmed that the current we have come to the situation today with this amendment requirement was for 24 hours'otice to be given before before us. The drafting of clause 4 is intended to provide entering land. officers with the powers of sampling and to allow them to The chief environmental health officer then explained inspect records, when carrying out investigations pertaining that it was normal practice for his officers to seek approval to an actual or perceived public health nuisance. I can before entering farm premises and to give as full an assure my good friend the hon. Minister of Agriculture explanation as possible why entry was required. Indeed, that they do not have that power at the moment. Ifthey did only in extremely rare circumstances, which were in the have the power, we would not be taking up the time of this public interest, would information as to the reason for entry hon. Court by bringing in this clause to this Bill. be withheld. He then went on to say that he was not aware We need to take samples and inspect records primarily of the need for any notices or warrants for entry ever having so that officers can make an informed decision on what to be served on farmers. He also inquired if members of action is needed to protect the health of the public the MNFU present had, or knew of any experience, of (Members: Hear, hear.). Mr Speaker, I am sure I do not officers entering their land without prior consent. need to point out to hon. members that, in certain I am extremely pleased to report that the MNFU were unable circumstances, the speed at which this can be done will to give such an example. In fact, I am glad to say have an impact on the effects of the nuisance on people' that the MNFU members present praised the way in which the department's health and anything which slows down the process, or officers went about their business. However, it became that the wished clause warns people, so that they can remove vital evidence could apparent MNFU 4 have very serious effects. changed to ensure that in all cases, except where a warrant had been issued, the officers had to give 24 hours'otice, Mr Speaker, the amendment before us today comes, as as at present, and also to provide all details of why access the hon. mover of that amendment has said, as a result of was necessary. concerns expressed by the Manx National Farmers Union, The legislative draftsman pointed out that this was not mistakenly believed that clause 4 will seriously affect the desirable as there may be occasions where in serious, or farming industry. When I first became aware of the potentially serious incidents endangering public health, the MNFU's concerns, I raised the issue at a branch meeting, disclosure of such information could lead to evidence being where I explained my surprise at their strong objections to removed and possibly disposed of elsewhere, illegally, clause 4. Mr Speaker, I was surprised at these objections causing further dangers for the public - for example, the because I believe that the proposed changes will have very dumping of toxic waste referred to by the hon. member, little impact on farmers Member: Hear, hear.) for (A Mrs Cannell. She says it can always be traced. That is not whom, as you know, Mr Speaker, I have a great deal of the case, because it is perfectly possible to dump toxic sympathy. Indeed, I am a landowner myself and have been waste in sealed containers, which would give no trace of a member of the MNFU for many years. what was inside them. This could be buried and the Clause 4 is aimed primarily at dealing with nuisances containers then removed if the reason for investigation was from industries and those are processing who incorrectly given. She says that there are no similar provisions in the or illegally operating waste disposal sites. Unfortunately, UK and quotes some UK Acts. I suspect there are similar there is a possibility in future that this could, on a very provisions in the UK and that the hon. member for East rare occasion, be done on a farm, so we cannotjust exempt Douglas, in fact, looked up the wrong Acts. The reason I farmland. How would you categorise farmland and have a say this is that our new, very able chief environmental legal definition which kept it from all other land? health inspector has just recently come from the adjacent There are, Mr Speaker, very few normal farming isles and I am sure that he would have said if our activities which could, or would, ever constitute a nuisance registration was out of line or excessive in relation to theirs. under the Public Health Act. Because of the MNFU Mr Speaker, returning to the meeting with the MNFU, concerns, I invited them to meet myself and all the other at this juncture of the meeting I informed them that the - department members but, unfortunately, my colleague, department would not amend clause 4 as they wished, as the hon member for Ayre was away and could not attend to do so might not be in the best interests of public health. - and officers of the government, including the legislative However, as my hon. colleague the Minister for Agriculture draftsman and the chief environmental health officer. At has now suggested, I then at that meeting promised to make this meeting, held on 5th of this month, the MNFU raised a statement to this hon. House that it is and will remain its concerns in respect of officers entering its land without firm practice to which the department is committed for all permission for all different reasons, including such things officers of the department to seek the approval of the as land surveys. landowner before entering land or their premises for the The legislative draftsman clearly explained that clause purpose of carrying out their duties in terms of the Public 4 did not give new powers of entry and that these already Health Act 1990, and that they will continue to inform the existed, nor did the provisions of clause 4 extend to any landowner the reasons why access is required. other legislation than the Public Health Act. This This is of course with the proviso that some details may information was welcomed, as some members of the be withheld in certain, very rare and very special

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS. TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K265

circumstances, where it is believed not to be in the best It would be quite improper for the Clerk to be here when public interest to disclose that public information. I cited, he has a personal interest. The matter is related to his for example, that of the burial of toxic materials in drums, continued - or not continued - employment, and the whole et cetera. world should know this. Mr Speaker, in keeping my promise, I hereby make this commitment on behalf of the department to hon. members The Speaker: That matter is for the debate if the motion of this House. goes on the order paper, when it is debated. I will not allow In conclusion, this amendment may lead to debate on the motion. The motion before you is that under circumstances that are contrary to the public interest, as it standing order 37(4) this House resolves to consider as could undermine the department's ability to get evidence the last business of this sitting the following motion. That to protect public health. I therefore urge hon. members is a motion for putting a motion on the order paper. The not to support this amendment. main motion is not for debate; the issue before the House is whether an item can go on the order paper. The Speaker: This is a suitable time to adjourn for lunch and Sir Miles Walker is to speak straight after lunch. Thank Mr Gilbey: Surely we can debate whether it should go you, hon. members. on the order paper. Those who favour it have aright to say so, as do those who do not. I have never known a resolution The House adjourned at 1.10 p.m. where any debate on that resolution has been denied.

The Speaker: There is no denial of the motion which Procedural is that an item go on the order paper. All matters go on the order paper, and this one has been brought forward to go The Speaker: Hon. member. on the order paper. The motion is in the name of Mr Braidwood. The motion can them be debated if we have time today at the last business of the sitting. am advised Mr Braldwnnd: Mr Speaker, I have circulated a paper I that at the moment there is not a Clerk to the House which I hope every member will have sight of now. Ifyou spare in case. There is a would like me to move this after the last business on the any simple motion before me that requires, in the terms of the standing order, that agenda paper I will be willing. I could move it now so that it can either be carried or lost on a the business would be taken at the end of the last meeting. quorum of the House. Sorry, Sir Miles. The Speaker: And you are moving it under what? Sir Miles Walker: It is only, Mr Speaker, that I am Mr Braidwood: Under standing order 37(4). waiting to speak to the resolution when you have finished.

The Speaker: Standing order 37(4). 'No business The Speaker: Right. The motion is strictly that under except that mentioned in the order paper shall be considered standing order 37(4) this House resolves to consider as unless by permission of a resolution of the House, the last business at this sitting, the following motion. The supported by a quorum. Petitions may be presented by debate is about whether an item goes on the agenda. Sir members without Miles. previous notice.'he hon. member, from what he has said wishes to have an item placed on the order paper which will, if the House Sir Miles Walker: I am pleased to speak to that, Mr approves, will be as a matter of last business. Do you wish Speaker. I do not mind who services the House for this to move, sir? particular debate. I would just like to make that clear. I had no idea, sir, until a few moments ago that there Mr Braidwood: Yes, Mr Speaker. was suggestion that a resolution of this sort was to be considered by the House either today or at any other stage. Mrs Cannell: Mr Speaker, I beg to second. When I heard it said in the corridors that this was going to be the case I further understood that this resolution was Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I think it going to be put on the agenda for next week in a ordered is quite improper for the Clerk of Tynwald to be here while fashion and appear written on the agenda. Ifthat had been this is discussed because everyone knows it is connected the case, it would have been there for us all to debate. By with a personal matter affecting him. Therefore I not only doing it this way, we must take a further step and ask request, demand on grounds of natural justice that he should whether it should appear on the agenda or not. vacate the Clerk's chair and be replaced by someone else- I do not believe that we have heard an argument from not Mrs Cullen, for equal reasons. the proposer of this resolution why we should consider this matter today and so have to suspend standing orders. The Speaker: Hon. member, this is a motion to put a Why could we not have considered the matter next week matter on the order paper, not to debate the issue. with a resolution properly put down, and with notice given to members about the nub of the matter so we could have Mr Gilbey: We have entitled to argue it should not be given it due consideration before it was bounced in front put on the order paper and in doing so explain our reasons. of members. Before I support or consider supporting the

Procedural K266 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 resolution that is in front of us, I would like to hear a very for a ministerial appointment, maybe I am finding out why good reason from the hon. member why he is doing it this this proposal is worded in that way. Hopefully, we will not way and not placing it in an ordered way on the order paper deal with the matter because we will run out of time, so for consideration next week. the hon. member for Glenfaba will get his wish. I am very worried about this whole procedure coming The Speaker: Right, hon. member, you have moved it, out in public. I think we have to consider seriously the it has been seconded, you can answer those questions when problems that we have with morale within our office, which you sum up. This will be done strictly in accordance with services us well. I hope that if the motion come up today, standing orders. Does anybody else wish to speak? it will then be deferred to the first item on the next sitting, because I think it would be wrong. I hope that somehow Mr Gilbey: Yes, I do certainly, Mr Speaker. The matter we can find a way around the situation, because this civil very much effects the hon. member for Peel and myself, strife between different sections within this hon. House is and the whole world knows what that it is proposed that doing no good to the Isle of Man. the hon. member for Glenfaba and the hon. member for Peel be discharged- The Speaker: The member for Ayre, Mr Quine.

Mrs Cannell: Mr Speaker, point of order. This is the Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My contribution fourth occasion the hon. member for Glenfaba has risen to on this particular motion will be very short indeed, sir. It his feet to speak. I though one could speak once on this is my understanding that the urgency in this matter arises particular issue, sir, and I thought that we were considering from the fact that the management committee have entered standing order 37(4), not the resolution. into a personnel process which, if it proceeds beyond a certain point, would obviate this type of motion being Mr Gilbey: Even if you are considering it- considered. The issues are matters of timing. I am sure the hon. mover will address that. As I understand it, sir, that is The Speaker: Hon. member, I will determine who can the underlying reason for the urgency that at least this first speak. The member for Glenfaba. step is addressed at today's sitting, sir.

Mr Gilbey: - the point is it very much affects the The Speaker: The member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe. reputations of the hon. member for Peel and I. It is proposed that we are sacked from a committee. The world outside Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would agree might think it is because we had stolen something or done with the hon. member for Onchan and I certainly agree something improper- with the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr Gilbey. Natural justice would dictate that there should be some time for Mrs Hannan: Yes. the two members that are mentioned in this motion, which is that the hon. member for Glenfaba and the hon. member Mr Gilbey: - and we have every right to make it clear for Peel be discharged from service on the management that it is because of a matter of policy on which we disagree committee. For what? with some other people. We should have proper notice of They must have time to prepare. Presumably we are this, a week's notice like everyone else has about accusing them of doing something or not complying with resolutions, so we can prepare statements. That is only our wishes in some way. I do not know. But it is wrong to natural justice- have this put on the agenda at such short notice. As the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran, said, we are in serious Mrs Crowe: Quite right. danger of damaging a great many people's reputations. There have been names bandied about in the newspaper. Mr Gilbey: We should be given a fair time to know Someone at some time is going to find that litigation might this is tabled and be able to prepare what we are going to be the only answer, so they can ask, 'What have I done? say. No-one who is related to the subject of resolutions in What is happening?'he whole of this process seems to this hon. House is not given that chance. We all agreed have been tainted, but we cannot possibly debate this that there is a proper time for people to consider motion without the two members that are mentioned having amendments just so they can speak on them. It is only been given some time to consider a response. Thank you, natural justice that we should be given time to consider Mr Speaker. this resolution and prepare what we wish to say. The Speaker: Mr Henderson. The Speaker: The member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we could Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I am a little bit clarify the fact that this motion before us is complying concerned. Obviously we have to put up with the abuses with all the standing orders to the letter, that suits me. There of being in public life and with misrepresentation. I am a is also the fact that we seem to be in some sort of a time little bit concerned about why they have only gone for two frame here which is also of the utmost importance. If the of the three members. That seems rather wrong. As the hon. mover can clarify those two things for me I will be chief rabbi of this House, who has had numerous passovers perfectly happy because I see this as a matter of great

Procedural HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K267

urgency and importance, not only for this House, but for A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: our parliament. For: Messrs Quine, Rodan, Houghton, Henderson, A Member: Hear, hear. Cretney, Duggan, Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Messrs Shimmin, Downie, Singer, Bell, Karran, Cannell and The Speaker: Does anybody else wish to speak? I now the Speaker - 15 call upon the mover to reply. Against: Messrs Gilbey, North, Sir Miles Walker, Mrs Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was with a Crowe, Messrs Rimington, Brown, Mrs Hannan, Messrs - heavy heart I had to get up this afternoon to move this Corkill and Gelling 9 standing order. I had a similar motion down for next Tuesday, but as we have discussed already today, we have The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion carries in the a very busy legislative programme. We had six first House of Keys, 15 votes for, 9 votes against. readings today, and there will be second readings next week. We have clauses stages for some other of the Bills, so I was very concerned with the time. After the Local Government (Miscellaneous Constitution Bill fell at its first hurdle today I thought there Provisions) Bill —Consideration of might be an appropriate time this afternoon after the second Clauses Concluded readings to put this motion on the agenda paper. There has been comment in the papers, but I have not told the papers. The Speaker: We will now revert to item 14 on the I have never- agenda. The first person to speak is Sir Miles Walker.

Mrs Crowe: Someone has. Sir Miles Walker: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. My interest in this clause was raised when I, like other Mr Braidwood: I have never sent faxes or whatever to members, got a letter from the National Farmers Union the or newspapers to the radio. We seem to have gone now referring to its contents. It was then I was in receipt of a into a situation with certain members of the House of Keys. letter from the Department of Local Government, and the I will have to just keep to the motion of the standing order Environment responding to the issues. I was satisfied with 37(4)- that letter, except in one respect, and one respect only. In the next to the last paragraph, the departments say 'Finally Mrs Hannan: Spell it out. on the matter of consultation, I would advise that the department did consult with all those it considered had a Mr Braidwood: I would spell it out if I was allowed, vested interest as the views of the 24 local authorities were and will do so if I can move the motion eventually. sought.'t Speaking to the standing order 37(4), sir, it has been is clear, Mr Speaker, that the National Farmers Union mentioned we are time constrained. There is an interview and other landowners have a vested interest in this on 7th February by the Tynwald Management Committee. particular subject. I think it would have been much better I was concerned that my motion might not go forward next for the department to have accepted that they had not week, with the heavy agenda, and that if I tried to get a consulted perhaps as widely on this issue as they could suspension of standing orders to put it on the first of the have done. I listened to the amendment that was proposed agenda paper, I would lose. Then it would be too late to by Mrs Cannell earlier on this morning. I will support it prevent the Tynwald Management Committee from doing unless persuaded by the minister that it is not necessary. The minister has responded anything. Ifit is appropriate, that this could go on first on to a request from the Minister of Agriculture to make a clear statement, the agenda paper next week. I would be quite happy for to very which he did. When he was give the hon. member for Glenfaba and the hon. member on his feet speaking to the amendment, he gave two reasons we should for Peel time to consider their situation and it could be why not support the amendment. First, because it would be seen to debated next Tuesday. I put this motion forward on the weaken the powers. Why, would it be seen to weaken the standing order 37(4) so that it would not interfere with the powers if the statement he has made legislative programme. very clearly earlier today responds to the message in the amendment. I do not understand why the amendment weakens the position of The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before is you the department on the Bill, and look to the minister to that under standing order 37(4) this House resolves to persuade me that that is the case when he sums up. consider as the last business at this sitting the following The other reason he gave was, 'It would be a poor motion. The hon. member for Glenfaba and the hon. message to those that we represent'. We need to know why member for Peel be discharged from service on the it would be a poor message, because I would suggest that Tynwald Management Committee and two members be if the hon. member for Glenfaba was not the Minister for now elected to serve in their place. Will those in favour of the Department of Local Government and the Environment the motion under standing order 37(4) please say aye; he would have been on his feet defending the rights of the against, no. The ayes have it. property owner, as he has on many previous occasions-

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K268 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

Mr Gilbey: I would not; it does not worry me at all. The Speaker: The member for Peel, Mrs Hannan.

Sir Miles Walker: Fine. Again, the hon. minister will Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I would have his opportunity to persuade me that that is the case. not be quite as vehement as the last speaker, but we have On a number of occasions in the past, the hon. member for to recognise that we are talking about public health. Over Glenfaba has, quite rightly in my view, responded to the last one hundred years - or maybe it is slightly longer- suggestions in legislation that the rights of the property our society has made progress through public health owner are paramount and certain procedures must be initiatives. It has been made not through medicines or followed before those rights are eroded. Will the minister anything else, but through the public health initiatives that set my mind at rest and tell me very clearly where his view have been taken during that period of time. I do not think and his statement departs from the amendment that is being we are talking about just agricultural land- proposed by the hon. member, Mrs Cannell? Mr Downie: We are not. The Speaker: Mrs Crowe. Mrs Hannan: Have the farmers got something to hide Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too would just that makes them say that people cannot enter their land like some clarification from the minister. This clause and to take samples or to look at computer records? It seems empowers officers to gather evidence which could well be that there is something out there to hide. I would have used in a prosecution. Consumer protection has been thought that we are looking at any land. Maybe there are highlighted in the farming industry in recent years. Will it developers developing land where the public health people has seek 24-hour notice damage that protection if one to are concerned that there is contamination. They are just to evidence. Sub-clause refers to a computer gather 4(b) going to carry on building no matter what, and they cannot or used in the furtherance of the business et any computer get on before some of it has been covered in concrete. cetera. We all know that offices are becoming paperless We should not concentrate solely on farmers having and 24 hours'otice would be ample time for anyone to rights and responsibilities. The Minister for Agriculture destroy evidence that was computer based. I would like asked what would happen if a vehicle came along, tipped just some clarification with regard to consumer protection up and threw a whole load of chemicals out. If they enter and any likely prosecution that could follow. Does the the water, course, they do not just affect that particular department feel that its case would be damaged by having stream. They can affect any down stream from that. If to seek permission - which would be unusual - 24 hours in someone had to wait to get a warrant or do the research in advance to enter land in furtherance of evidence gathering the vicinity of any contaminated land, I would be concerned for whatever the prosecution may be? about that. Avehicle might have been on fire and chemicals used on the roadside to it out. This can contaminate The Speaker: The member for Douglas North, Mr put Houghton. hedgerows or fields. Oil spills cause a real problem. There are other issues which can affect farmers. In the interest health would want to Mr Houghton: I rise to oppose the amendment in the of pure public you name of the hon. member for East Douglas. In addition to gain access to within that 24 hours. I hope that there is not an awful lot on out there that we need warrants for the points raised by the minister I should like to draw going members'ttention to the rather unworkable practice of to enter, simply because of the relationship that people in obtaining a warrant which has to be sworn by a JP before the Department of Agriculture have with regard to the an environmental health officer may enter land to obtain Department of Local Government and the Environment samples. with regard to the Public Health Act. Ifwe are saying there In the case of emergencies the efforts which an officer are a lot of things going on out there that cannot be looked of the department would have to go to in order to locate a at without the warrants and all the rest of it, then I did not justice of the peace, could raise enormous difficulties. This think that we had got to that stage. There is an awful lot can be especially difficult of course at times outside normal going on out there for which we need warrants to bring office hours. I can recall many occasions as a former special this into being. I hope that members will support the constable when we had severe difficulties locating the legislation as written. Access on to land - and not just farm justice of the peace in the evening, on a bank holiday or land, hills or building land - may often be in the interests sometimes on the weekends to get a warrant signed. Those of public health. We should have that right in respect of delays can be costly and time consuming and in today' overall public health. I do not think we have got that much environment lead to impractical bureaucracy which in itself to hide. Although some people may want to hide things, is unacceptable. agriculturists do not. Their concern has not been In this day and age to give a landowner 24 hours before communicated to me that this has, or could be, abused in returning to take samples in situations which are concerned the future, so I hope that members will support the Bill, as with public health is completely unacceptable. I can written. understand the intentions of the hon. mover of this amendment on behalf of the National Farmers Union. The Speaker: Hon. member for Castletown. However, I ask her and any other hon. member considering supporting this provision to think again in the urgent Mr Brown: Yes, Mr Speaker, thank you. I would like interest of public health. to take the opportunity to refer to something that I think is

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K269

relevant. In our minds what should be of absolute of innocent parties, who may be a child or it may be an paramount importance is public health. The health of the adult - it could be animals in fact. On the other hand, do people we represent overrides anything else when people you want to have a stage where you say 'Mr Jones down may be undertaking an illegal act. Anybody who is not the road is polluting the environment and, by the way, this undertaking an illegal act has nothing to worry about. It is is why we want to come on his land' also very important to get down to the situation. The case The provisions are already in the Act. It is quite clear. that has been put has basically focused on farmers, but The hon. member for Douglas East read them out. They that is not what this Bill says. It refers to any land. It could have to give 24 hours'otice, except in an emergency case be my house and my garden. It could be your house and or where a case warrants it, and then they can get a warrant. your garden, or a field you own. You could be a landowner They do not just have a right - they have to get a warrant. who is allowing it to be used for tipping where it is not a If officers of the department go straight on to somebody' farm. land and abuse that right, they are liable to conviction. So We had a situation not long ago in Manx law where a the safeguards are there. restaurant was causing a problem where people were I do not understand why the amendment is being put getting food poisoning. Under the present law, which forward. The Bill simply enhances what the officers of the was introduced presumably with good will, we, as the department can do once they have sought permission to Government, had to give notice to that restaurant - the get on the land. All they can do is take samples. That is restaurant is shut now so it is a number - of years ago that, what it is about - taking samples. The minister clearly in fact, they were being inspected. found out what They showed that there could be occasions when somebody was wrong, but it took five days before they were able to could have a product on the land that should not be there, close that restaurant, which could carry on in that five-day but in containers that are sealed. Ifthat person were given period continuing to provide food in dirty kitchens. Nothing notice, those containers would be removed. has improved the welfare of the people of this Island, or I believe that the legislation under 1990 Act is adequate. anywhere else, more than public health: Surely that should I believe we should give new powers to the department so be paramount in our mind. that they can take samples. I do not believe, along with the The case has been made that the National Farmers Union Manx National Farmers Union, that this are concerned about this legislation. What concerns them, gives people powers to enter on to private land at will. The Act says it is concerns every landowner, whether it is your house or not correct. whatever. Let us read the letter that was circulated, which The Act is clear. came from the Manx National Farmers Union, of which quite No officer of government can enter on anybody else's land at will because every member received a copy. I quote: 'The concerns of they either have to give notice or have the members of the MNFU, however, relate principally to they to get a warrant. If they enter at will, they are an offence and the additional powers being sought by the DLG in what committing are liable either to a fine or even would effectively prove to be a statutory right by any person prison. They are certainly liable to an authorised by the DLG to enter upon private land at will'. offence in their own right. members That is wrong. The 1990 Act, as read out by the member I hope will stick with the Bill as it is. Let us who moved the amendment, has clear statutory rules. It is continue with the procedure that has worked well and has - not just an idea, not just a policy. There are statutory rules not caused a problem as was admitted by the MFNU to laid down in the Act which make the procedures very clear. the minister in his discussions. Let us, for goodness'ake, The Bill before us does not change any of the procedures, first and foremost safeguard the public and not the rogue. but it enables the department to get to a stage where it can take samples in connection with an issue. It can deal with The Speaker: If nobody else wishes to speak, I call the computers, and so on. upon the mover of the amendment, Mrs Cannell, to reply. I cannot really follow the argument that we should tell people - and we are talking about potential criminals - who Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to say do not give a monkey about society and may well be more we have just heard the use of some very emotive language interested in making a few thousand pounds or even a few by the previous speaker. He talked about children's health hundred pounds. Thank goodness, we do not have a big and animals'ealth. Of course, there is legislation in place reputation for this, but they may be disposing of products for dealing with the health of children and, equally, that of into the ground that damage the environment and public animals. I hope that hon. members can see the wood for health, children's health or whatever. Why would we want the trees in respect of this particular issue. to go along the road that the hon. member for Douglas I thank the hon. member for Rushen, Mr Rimington, East is moving - Mrs Cannell? If there is an urgent case, for seconding the amendment and I also express my regardless of what goes on, the department can go under grateful thanks to the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Downey. the Act and get a warrant. He supported the argument that a reason ought to be given As the hon. member for Douglas North has explained, before samples are taken. JPs do not just give them out like that. They want to make I am grateful for the support that has been indicated by absolutely sure the department has no choice. In all other the other hon. member for Rushen, Sir Miles. He wants a cases, the department, even under the Bill, will have to jolly good argument from the minister for why he should give 24 hours'otice. not support the amendment. The question I have to put to members is, who do you We should consider what the hon. minister said. He said want to protect? Do you want to protect the public health that the amendment weakens the powers of government,

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K270 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 but they are already weak, given that they are not for the moment stands as good legislation. There will empowered to take samples. The amendment is not taking always be difficulties when wanting to get a warrant when argument with or exception to the fact that samples should, you are looking to obtain one out of hours. in certain circumstances, be taken for the protection of Finally the last speaker, the hon. member for Castletown, public health. We are not saying that at all. Samples ought said this legislation will affect all land - that which is to be taken and ought to be legitimised. Perhaps the hon. privately owned, that which is farmed, that which is not- minister means that when samples have been taken in the and will include people's gardens. He is quite right. It will past, they may have been taken illegally. We support the include all land. But then, of course, he used emotive strength that the department is seeking in terms of language. He referred to food poisoning, restaurants, said empowering their officers, or inspector, to be able to take it was ridiculous that notice had to be given because of samples if he or she sees that something is amiss. That is children's health and animals. He was all very good not a problem. emotive stuff that had nothing to do with this amendment, The minister talked about 'actual'r 'perceived' and which does not say that samples should not be taken. It is the reason for I think that this is where we get down to the root of the merely saying that, if samples are required, problem. Perhaps the officers perceive that they might have the taking of the samples should be given. before someone in to inspect problems in legitimising the taking of sample. That is why Notice has to be given goes a home or a residential home, unless there is a we have the Bill, as written. nursing that so would not be in the The minister also said that warrants had never been strong allegation to do public interest. The same in the Public Health Act. there served on farmers in the past. I would not quibble with applies If indications that a notice would not serve the him on that, and I certainly have not researched that side are strong interest of the public in a public health issue, the officer of things to see whether or not warrants have been served can straight in. I remind hon. members of provisions in the past under the Public Health Act. He suggested that go under section 35 of the Public Health Act, 'A person they probably never will be sought for farm land. That empowered to enter on land shall, if so required before or shows that the farmers are doing what they should be doing; after entering on the land, produce evidence of this they are the guardians of the land. He talked about toxic authority to enter'. He does not have to give 24 hour notice waste that can be containerised and swiftly moved away in that instance; he merely has to, if requested, produce within a 24 hour period. I would suggest that unless strict his authority to enter. He may take with him on to the land laboratory methods were employed during that 24 hour such other persons and such equipment as are necessary period, one could not expect to remove toxic waste in for the purpose in question. He could take someone with containers without there being some residue left where the him. He could also take a drill, piece with him ifhe wanted waste was first placed. He also suggested that I might have to drill to do tests or whatever. looked at the wrong legislation - the UK legislation - only The Act then states 'He shall not, if the land is occupied, because, of course, the officer, in advising the minister, demand admission to the land as of right', if the land is had not mentioned anything to do with the United Kingdom occupied. If the land is not occupied, or he does not see in it. legislation or the omission of this particular item The that the land is occupied, of course under the Public Health that must be me that is take a suggestion it wrong, I degree Act, section 35, he is empowered to go on. Then, of course, of offence at. Hon. members do their homework and the 24 hour thing kicks in. The Act follows on, 'unless - research before they open their mouths in this place or at notice of the intended entry has been served on the occupier least I hope they do. not less than 24 hours before the demand'. So there is a The minister made a similar statement in a letter sent to discretion there. He is empowered to go on the land anyway - the farmers union this year that the code of practice for but, if it is occupied and is seen to be occupied, he is his officers will also be to contact the farmer to indicate expected to ask the owner for permission to go on to the the desire to enter the land and to give a reason thereof. Of land within a 24 hour period. But he does not have to do course, when the farmers union approached the minister that. over this, and they had their meeting, they looked for There are all sorts of specifications whereby the officer written assurance. They wanted a letter of comfort from can make a case to a JP. One of those provisions is an the minister. application on the grounds that admission would defeat Ifthey had received that, we might not have been looking the object of entry. He has that power. If it was going to at an amendment today. An agreement in writing would defeat the object of entry - that is to say, if there was such have satisfied their concerns, but all the letter gave them waste as the minister alluded to, which could be was an indication that the minister fully intended to make containerised in a very short period of time and shipped or a statement to this hon. House today to the effect of the lorried off - then he has, under the same legislation, the protocol to be adhered to by his officers. He mentioned it opportunity to claim that admission would defeat the object earlier, but again there was no letter agreeing to that. of entry. That proviso exists. Mr Houghton serves on the department and has a degree Equally, he may apply if a refusal of admission is of responsibility in this area, and so I am not going to argue apprehended or the land is unoccupied, or the occupier of with him, but he did say that it was difficult to obtain a the land is temporarily absent, or the case is one of urgency. warrant through a JP. He criticised the provisions already There are all sorts of specifications under the Act where in the Public Health Act. Provision exists for taking that one can make a case for a warrant. route, so we are not aiming to change that. It was approved I suggested at the onset that a letter to the farmers union by previous Administrations and, as far as I understand, would have been sufficient, saying this is the code of

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K271

- practice, this is what we will adhere to, that the ministers the department would always prefer in any case apart authorise this and it has been agreed by the department. from the difficulties of warrants - to give 24 hours'otice. That was not forthcoming. All we have is a letter from the We do not want to wave warrants about at farmers or minister saying that he anticipates making a statement to anyone else. Under the existing law, they can give notice the House. He did not give a written assurance to the and then go on the land. That is not new - I must stress that farmers - that did not come. until I am almost blue in the face. There is nothing new I hope members will see the sense of this. The about the power of entry on to land. All we are asking for amendment does not jeopardise public health. I want to is the power to take samples. make that clear. It does not jeopardise or risk the operation In most cases we have assured the farming community of the department in protecting public health, children' and everyone else that the reason for wanting to go on the health or animals'ealth. Animal health is covered under land and take a sample would be explained. However, there separate legislation. I hope members will support. are cases where, not in respect of the farming community, but in respect of factories or waste tips, if you gave 24 The Speaker: Minister to reply. hours'otice and have to give the reason - I stress that we normally would give the reason in the case of something

Mr Gilbey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid I will you knew was really naughty, you give people 24 hours'o have to do this at some length. remove the evidence. Ifyou ask permission and go, and First, I am sorry that members of the MNFU have had they do not know the reason, they have not been put on so long to wait. At least they had the interesting interlude notice to remove the evidence. That is why we want this. as soon as we resumed. I turn to the amendment tabled by The hon. member, Sir Miles, said that I oppose things the hon. member for East Douglas, Mrs Cannell. There is that are against the rights of the property owner. I certainly no doubt at all that to accept her amendment would weaken do, but I think this is so completely minor as to be the powers of the department in comparison to a irrelevant. What matters to me - and I would have thought combination of those in the existing Act and those in the to other owners of property - is the right of an inspector to proposed sections of this Bill. Samples may have been go on to that property, which they now have. Let us be in taken away in the past but things can always be done by no doubt at all, as my friend Mr Brown pointed out, that mutual agreement. As has been made quite clear, the right to go on the land is what matters. Once they have got department regards the farming community as most there, does it matter if they take a sample? They are not reasonable and helpful. I have no doubt that farmers have, going to take lorry loads of stuff. They are going to take a in the past, agreed to samples being taken. sample of earth, manure or water or something. Is that so There is no doubt at all that toxic waste can be in terrible? Frankly, if someone came on to my land, I would containers in such a way that it can not be traced afterwards. not be worried, and I can not see why anyone else should The Government itself - our own department - is be. responsible for some stores of toxic waste. It is stored in I agree with him that there are things that do worry me containers which, when they are moved, will leave no traces - things that worry me a great deal more. I am, with respect whatsoever in the place where those containers have been. to my friends in the NFU, surprised they are not much I, contrary to the hon. member for Douglas East, believe more worried about those things. What about the laws that that a statement made to this hon. House and recorded for say farmers cannot leave mud on the roads? I do not know posterity in Hansard, is far more important and carries far how you go in and out of a field these days without leaving more weight than any mere letter from me or anyone else. mud on the roads. If anyone would tell me how to do it, I I wrote a letter to the general secretary of the NFU making would be delighted. it perfectly clear that this statement would be made, and it There are other laws, like the fact that farmers are was made. They have had both a letter and a statement in responsible if someone else leaves the gate open and their this House but I must make it clear that I regard statements cattle stray on the roads and cause an accident. These are in this House as carrying far more weight - and I hope things that really matter, regarding which I would share other hon. members would - than a mere letter from me or the concern of Sir Miles and other people. In all honesty, I any other minister. cannot see why anyone should be terribly worried about The hon. member for Douglas North, my colleague Mr someone who has got a right to go on your land and take Houghton, with his experience of warrants, has explained some samples. I hope that I have answered his question, I the problems of getting them. I am most grateful to the trust satisfactorily. hon. member for Castletown, Mr Brown, for his clear To sum up on some of the points, the views of the Manx examples and reading out the appropriate parts of the National Farmers Union were very much taken into existing Act. I also thank the hon. member for Peel, Mrs account. I apologise that they were not in the original Hannan, for her support and the good examples she gave consultation. In retrospect one can see that they should of the reasons for needing this legislation. have been, but no-one was thinking of them at the time. I hope I shall be able to satisfy Sir Miles. He wants to Our thoughts were entirely in respect of the operators of know how this amendment would weaken the powers of commercial premises, factories, tips and so on. I wonder the department. At the moment, quite rightly, you either whether, had we consulted them right at the beginning and have to take out a warrant - which can, as my colleague, explained things as we have tried to since, they would still Mr Houghton, has explained, be time consuming and be opposing the clause as it is. It would be interesting to difficult - or you have to give 24 hours'otice. Frankly, know. I promised a statement and, I have made a statement.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K272 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

Hansard will show that I have said it several times over so that the department is having in its duty to remove there can be no doubt about it. abandoned vehicles off the streets and open places on the I am afraid I just cannot accept the amendment. As I Island. The law currently states that an abandoned vehicle have stressed, the legislation is not aimed at farmers. It must be removed and held in a compound for up to 21 was brought in on account of factories, waste disposal tips days. This method is causing severe delays, as the and other such operations. Unfortunately, I cannot think compound is usually permanently full of vehicles, and thus of a way to legislate in which you can divide the ownership other reported vehicles have to wait in situ until spaces of land into different categories and say 'Ah well, we have become available. This can mean many months in some not got the power on this land because it is farming land cases, where vehicles in a dangerous condition are left, but we can go on to that land because it is a factory or a which attract the attention of children. tip'. Sometimes, people would say they were farmers, and I know that many hon. members become frustrated, as a tip owner might even be doing some farming too. It is indeed I do, when derelict vehicles are unable to be shifted just not practical to have a separate situation for farmers. due to the continual backlog. It would be a truly regrettable I stress that we need to have the power not to give an situation, if children came to harm due to a wreck which explanation. Normally, I promise that the officers would has its wheels taken off and was sitting precariously on definitely, when seeking the permission to go on the land, bricks, if it fell on top of them and crushed or harmed seek that permission and explain what they wanted. them. However, in cases where they thought there was serious Abandoned vehicles, wherever their location, are a real abuse they must have the power not to give the reason and nuisance. My clause, therefore, would amend the law not to tip off people in advance. I am sure that that is right whereby a period of seven days'otice is given, usually in the public interest. As has been pointed out, there is not by attaching a large sticker on the windscreen of the one case of our inspectors finding anything wrong in what vehicle, stating that if it is not claimed within seven days, we have been talking about in connection with farms. the ownership of that vehicle will be assumed by the Farmers themselves have said how reasonable our department and the vehicle will be disposed of. inspectors are and what a good relationship there is. I also wish to assure hon. members that the continued Therefore, we all believe that that relationship should arrangement of a compound will permit the immediate continue, but we need the legislation in this Bill to deal removal of vehicles that are parked in hazardous places, et with people who are not farmers, such as an unscrupulous cetera. Other vehicles, which have an obvious value, will minority of people who might be running factories or plant, also be held in the department's compound and will be dumping contaminates or might be putting things that dealt with under the existing arrangements. This new should not into landfills. I hope that hon. members will arrangement will guarantee the early removal of derelict not support this amendment, but will support the clause as and worthless abandoned vehicles, which are considered printed in the Bill. to be a real nuisance.

The Speaker: Hon. members, you have before you the Removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles amendment in the name of the member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell. Will all those in favour of the amendment In Part I (removal and disposal of vehicles) ofthe Local please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984'-

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: (a) in section 2, after subsection (3) insert-

For: Messrs Rimington, Henderson, Mrs Cannell and (3A) Where in pursuance of subsection Mr Singer -4 (2)(b) or (3) an appropriate authority proposes to remove a vehicle which in its opinion is in such a Against: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Rodan, North, Sir Miles condition thatit ought to be destroyed, it shall, not Walker, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Brown, Houghton, Cretney, less than the prescribed period before removing it, Duggan, Braidwood, Shimmin, Downie, Mrs Hannan, cause to be affixed to the vehicle a notice stating Messrs Bell, Karran, Corkill, Cannell, Gelling and that the authority proposes to remove it for the Speaker - 20 destruction on the expiration of that period. ";

The Speaker: Hon. members, the amendment fails to (b) in section 4(2), at the end insert ", other than a carry, 4 votes in favour, 20 votes against. vehicle to which a notice was affixedin accordance I now put the motion clause 4 as written be approved. with section 2(3A) "; Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. (c) in section 5, for subsection (I)substitute- At this point, before I move to clause 5, I will take the new clauses and the first new clause I will take is in the (I) Subject to subsection (2), the Department may, in name of the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr such manner asit thinksfit, dispose of any vehicle Houghton: removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles. removed by it pursuant to section 2 or an order under section 11(1) or 14A(4) of the Road Traffic Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to move Regulation Act 1985 or delivered toit under section a new clause in to this Bill with regard to severe difficulties 4(1)-

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K273

(a) in the case ofa vehicle to which a notice was affixed Mr Cretney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I add my support in accordance with section 2(3A) and on which no to the hon. member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, first current licence was displayed at the time of its of all in his swift action in getting this matter before the removal, at any time after its removal; House (AMember: Hear, hear.) and taking advantage of this particular piece of legislation to do so, because it has (b) in the case of a vehicle to which a notice was so been a growing problem over the past several years. My affixed and on which a current licence was displayed colleague, Mr Duggan, and I, have also experienced these at the time of its removal, at any time after the difficulties in our constituency, whether on private parking licence expires; areas or round about the local authority estates. They constitute a danger because people damage the vehicles, (c) in any other case, at any time afterit has taken the and break glass. In some cases, they are pushed along and prescribed steps to find the owner of the vehicle, could cause real problems. I welcome the initiative shown and either- by the hon. member and I am pleased to support it.

(i) it has failed to find the owner; or The Speaker: Mr Duggan, hon. member for Douglas South. (ii) the owner, or a person appearing to the Department to be the owner, has failed to Mr Duggan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like my comply with a notice requiring him to colleague Mr Cretney, we have had lots of problems in remove the vehicle within the prescribed our constituency, not only in Anagh Coar, but Pulrose and period. "; even Hutchinson Square, with derelict vehicles. As Mr Houghton mentioned, they are derelict and have no tyres (d) in section 5, at the endinsert- and wheels. Kids are playing in them. They are not road taxed. We report and report them. People come back to us "(4) In this section "current licence", in and they think we are doing nothing about it. We are doing relation to a vehicle, means a vehicle licenceissued our duty, there are no compounds to put them in. That is in respect of the vehicle under the Licensing and the main thing. They are left lying there for months on end Registration of Vehicles Act 1985. "; and something needs to be done. I am pleased that Mr Houghton has taken this move. I congratulate him. (e) in column 2 of Schedule I, for the entry relating to section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1985 The Speaker: Member for Douglas East, Mr substitute- Braidwood.

"Sections 14 to 14B (regulation of on-street parking Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also lend ". " places) my support to the provision but I would like a little clarification from the mover. At the present time, cars are '984 c.5 moved into a secure compound for 21 days. In this case, they are not going into the compound, but the notice will, The Speaker: Mr Henderson. I presume, not put the liability on to the department. So if any children are injured while there is a notice on the Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir. In doing so, I would vehicle, the department will not be liable. That is essential just like to add my support to the comments of my hon. because when the cars are moved into the compound, they friend for North Douglas. This is a growing problem for are taken off the road and then there is three weeks given Douglas town and I am sure for other areas throughout the to trying to trace the owner before they are scrapped, Island. Not only is it a health and safety issue, it drags the otherwise there is an insurance liability. amenity of an area down. The sheds, as we call them, The become an eyesore for the whole area and generally, as Speaker: Member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe. they degrade where they are dumped, become a nuisance. Mrs Crowe: Thank The backlogging is becoming more acute and my hon. you, Mr Speaker. I, too, would just like to congratulate the mover this colleague's new clause seeks to try and address this in some of new clause. It is not only Douglas that has this way. problem. We have had problems down south and I am sure we will be grateful to be able to I am sure it will not help in every case but I certainly utilise the legislation that will be encompassed in the Bill. would support it in trying to be the first, in what I see as I, too, would like to congratulate the mover of the new many new initiatives, to try and help solve this growing clause. Thank you, Mr Speaker. issue, especially for the capital of this Island. The Speaker: Mrs Hannan. A Member: Hear, hear. Mrs Hannan: I should like to raise a point of caution, The Speaker: Mr Cretney, hon. member for Douglas Vainstyr Loayreyder. The new clause will actually South. encourage people to dispose of their cars irresponsibly. It

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K274 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

will say that government is there, and government will we do see, parked around unlicensed and unused for quite pick it up, we will leave it just lying around. We must some time, some pretty reasonable vehicles. I would not remember that second-hand cars have very little value these have thought that in pursuance of subsection et cetera 'in days. The cost of new vehicles has come down and that its opinion in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed'ould has brought the value of second-hand vehicles down even cover the entire problem. Some vehicles are dumped further. They have even less value now, so we will have by people who have bought them and they then go back to more cars lying around, dumped. Ireland or wherever. They just leave them and, if they were In saying that they are going to be more proactive, may taxed to start with, the taxation runs out. be the government should be upping the duty on vehicles, The likelihood is that, in many cases they were not taxed so that the government has the finance to dispose of each to start with in the name of the owner at least. There are of these vehicles, so that the person who is the owner of some pretty reasonable vehicles around so the proposal the vehicle, paying the licence fee and duty is actually might not quite sweep up them. That leaves me to think paying something towards its disposal. whether we might not be better working towards a system It is all right being a nanny state and dealing with of road fund, tax licence disc, whatever you call it now. I everything as it comes in and goes out, but people have to got into difficulty last time by saying that the product of have a responsibility for having a vehicle and for using a that might be better employed directly to road maintenance vehicle. does concern me that we are It now creating this and was told off by the Treasury chief executive, who said sort of facility for people as long as they have disposed of that lots of money was spent on roads. it. We might be better moving towards a system where in We are a disposable else will very society, somebody fact the taxation is put directly on to the fuel costs of the rid of. I hope that we could some sort get bring of Island. Now, heaven knows, fuel is dear enough already, responsibility back to the who own the cars, instead people but that would obviate the number of vehicles that are of just saying, 'Oh, it is dumped there and government or running around unlicensed. The chances are if they are the local authority or somebody else will deal with it.'eing unlicensed, the people driving them are also uninsured. a responsible government, I hope that they can come I do not know what risk is being put onto the Isle of forward with something like this very shortly to deal with Man's ordinary road users people running round when such a situation. by they are not insured nor licensed, and possibly running round in vehicles which would never see the The Speaker: Member for Glenfaba. actually light of day for an MOT. But that is not what we are talking about entirely here because I know of an area, and I would Mr Gilbey: I first of all join in on congratulating my not care to name it where in fact there are a colleague on his initiative in bringing this forward. (A specifically, number of reasonable vehicles which are on car Member: Hear, hear.) It was his idea, for which he is to just put parks unlicensed. Such action is taken be warmly congratulated. In answer to the point made by by garage establishments, the hon. member for Peel, in fact, there are already, under who actually use the streets as a public the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act car parking space. 1984, adequate penalties. It says, 'Any person who without Householders are getting on to me and I am sure every hon. lawful authority abandons on any road or on any land in other member as well (AMember: Hear, hear.) saying the open air, a vehicle or anything which forms part of a that they cannot park outside their houses because these vehicle, which is removed from it in the course of vehicles are shipped in and out. Even if they are licensed dismantling it, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on in fact clearly the on-street car parking system, is being summary conviction to a fine not exceeding f5000.'e exploited by garages who just come out in the morning have certainly got that stick to stop people doing what the with half a dozen cars and block the place up. I think it is hon. member feared, which is taking advantage of what all these ramifications that we need to think of as well. might be called a collection service. Furthermore, when the cars are ready for destruction, I I certainly hope concurrently with the proposals that presume that this is going to benefit, in the main, a certain the hon. member, Mr Houghton, is putting forward that establishment down in the south who deal more than we will try and increase our observation and our adequately with this. prosecution of people who do leave vehicles about our Is there going to be any recouping of the charge? Okay, beautiful Island. you cannot find the owner but it is going to be quite a charge to say, 'Come and get these vehicles'. On Sunday, The Speaker: Mr Cannell, member for Onchan. I was out at Archallagan and I saw a field with about 50 cars in it which is a most charming sight when viewed Mr Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am in favour of from the roadside, let alone actually viewed from the air. this new clause in principle, but we should not get carried The product of all these scrappers, all piled up all over the away and rush into it wildly without thinking about some place, is not a pleasant one for those who would stand of the spin-offs. Because, in fact, lots of the vehicles that here in other circumstances and tell us of their are deposited around the Island and unlicensed would no environmental concerns. We just need to think the thing way be thought to be of a description that they should be right through. destroyed. We are on the right lines and I will support my hon. Whilst the second-hand vehicle market is poorer than it colleague for North Douglas, but I just think the whole was because of the low cost of new vehicles, nevertheless subject needs to be looked at because there are probably,

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K275

at this moment in the Island, about 200 vehicles. You can Of course, that then leads us into the circumstance of tell the ones down Douglas promenade, because they have investigating the previous owner. Needless to say, if the got half of the shingle underneath them. They have never vehicle outside 21 Daycroft Avenue is attached to the been moved (Members: Hear, hear.) for months. The only person who had that address and that was the last owner - time they had to go it must have been a paradise for Pat they would be contacted about that vehicle because the Caroll down at Balthane when they had the royal visit- department would be pursuing them, as would the police. because the entire promenade had to be vacated then. In In a lot of circumstances, that vehicle is likely to have fact, he probably picked up 20or 30 cars that day, but that been unroadworthy. To answer the hon. member's query is the last time they have moved because I come past them on that, it still is in the ownership of the previous owner if every day. that can be proved. In certain other areas that are under trees, the cars have That moves me then on to another problem, and I thank turned from blue cars to green, (Laughter) because they the hon. member, Mrs Hannan, who spoke about are covered in moss, some of them perfectly serviceable discouraging these people and how to find ways of vehicles that may be a person's pride and There is joy. a prosecuting these owners. The problem currently is that lot more to it than just saying shift any cars that are lying when the previous owner of a vehicle, is contacted by the around that do not have a tax disc on. You have to got police or environmental health because they were the last think it right through. We have also to think of the people registered owner, if they have informed the authority that with cars who do not use them, with licences on. Now I they have sold it on to this next person for cash, that is the would be told I am sure by everybody, that that is fine, if end of the line as far as prosecution is concerned, or the you have got a licence you can leave it on the street. That ability to prosecute is concerned. is not the point, they are not getting used. Ifyou cannot find anybody who admits being the owner It would be almost worth - I have often thought of it- of that vehicle and, even in some cases, again with buying a cheap serviceable car, licensing it and putting it my previous experience in the Special Constabulary, you knew on a car park because you preserve a car park, all the time full well that a lot of these people were through their for your own use, for whenever you want it. We know in lying teeth, when they said, 'No that vehicle is not mine TT fortnight what happens. People work out the cost a anymore.'e could not take further hire car. They look at the cost of a hire car - f200 or f300, any action about that. He said he had sold it and that was that. so they buy one of these vehicles for 830 or f40 from the We are, quite involved with back of a yard and they drive round in it totally unlicensed research, which will have to interwork with and uninsured. the Treasury of course, to ways of finding if at all possible the owners of those vehicles. At the end of the fortnight they go down to the boat, The they find the nearest place and they just walk away from hon. member for Onchan, Mr Cannell, made an excellent the cars. Sometimes, they even leave the keys in them, or point about the fact that you can just pick up a vehicle they give them away to anyone who is opportunistic enough and drive it all over. I can tell hon. members there to be in the area. There is a bit more to it than meets the are hundreds of those vehicles on the Island, possible even eye, but in principle I applaud the hon. member for bringing a thousand. There are numerous vehicles being driven on this, which will go some way towards the problem. the roads in the Isle of Man without tax and insurance. A lot of those vehicles are not just junkers, sheds as my hon. The Speaker: Can I ask the mover to reply? Mr colleague referred to them. A lot of them are vehicles in Houghton. reasonable condition. To support entirely what the hon. member says, perhaps Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been an there could be an initiative in looking into this whole issue extremely valuable and enjoyable debate and there have with the Treasury as far as duty is concerned, rather than been some very, very good comments put forward. I begin vehicle road fund tax. But when that vehicle has been by thanking my hon. colleague, Mr Henderson, for his dumped, after it has been picked up run round for Tt'eek, support and for seconding this additional clause. I thank of course we have the problem, of locating the owner, also the hon. colleagues for South Douglas, Mr Cretney prosecuting him if we can, or still having to remove it. and Mr Duggan, who themselves have very similar In this particular clause, I want an easier way to problems, to myself and my colleague in North Douglas, accelerate the issue of removing these vehicles just as soon in their constituency with vehicles that are on bricks and as I possibly can. An environmental health officer or a in a derelict and dangerous situation. police officer who is going to make the deciding point Mr Braidwood makes a very valuable comment, which whether the cars should be then taken from where they I am very pleased to note, about the liability of the vehicles stand and removed into the compound under the usual once they have been stickered. I am very pleased to clarify arrangements if there is any sort of clue or the vehicle is in that the department assumes the ownership of the vehicle a reasonable condition where it really has a residual value when it actually collects the vehicle from wherever it has then or more. It can then be held in the compound until been left. During the period of notice put on the windscreen further enquiries are completed. If they still then cannot by an environmental health officer, not just by anyone who find an owner for that vehicle and that vehicle can then be wants a sticker stickered to any windscreen, following the sold, obviously the money would go to the Treasury. obvious criteria that the vehicle is untaxed et cetera, is I have sought to see whether we have had any vehicles that then there is automatically a behind the scenes in the compound in the past years that have been of any investigation done on the background to that vehicle. value to sell on afterwards and the answer was that nobody

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K276 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

could remember in the department the last time that their services as far a providing building bye-laws is happened. We really are focusing our attention on concerned, because there will be a great saving to the rates unroadworty, derelict vehicles, abandoned vehicles of of Ramsey, just like there would be a great saving for the extremely low value that just simply need, after either rates for Onchan and Douglas to do the same. transferring to the compound if the owner could not be My proposal would make it more viable for the likes of found or straight to the scrap yard, especially for those Ramsey to do that service for adjoining local authorities. absolute burnt-out wrecks and derelict wrecks that must This proposal should be supported, not just by the Onchan be removed. This will speed up such action. members and Douglas members because we are the only I also thank the hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe, ones now that are left, and Peel, and slowly dissipating for her support. I thank the minister for answering some away. It is wrong that we have a situation where we actually of Mrs Hannan's points and Mr Cannell, who made a penalise the more progressive local authorities. We talk a number of very, very good points, some of which I think lot about local authority reform. This is just a little thing I have answered. He was absolutely right, it is an ideal to push it forward and I hope, Vainstyr Loayreyder, example. In the case of the royal visit, it is amazing members will support my new clause in principle. I beg to what can be done then to shift those vehicles. move: (Interjection) Yes, indeed, then we would get the vehicles shifted. In the case of vehicles that need to be "Reimbursement of certain expenses by local shifted which are parked in a dangerous position or are authorities blocking lanes and when there are royal visits, this is where we have the ability when vehicles can be (1) After section 92 of the Public Health Act 1990 removed, immediately on the spot, to the compound, insert— which we wish to continue. Those issues are not related specifically to the clause. "Expenses of Department

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that the 92A. (1) Where, in pursuance of arrangements new clause be agreed in principle. Those in favour, please under section 2(1) of the Local say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Government Act 1985, the Department Mr Houghton, please present the clause to stand part of provides technical assistance to a local the Bill. authority in the exercise of its functions under this Act, the authority shall pay to Mr Houghton: I beg to move that the clause stand part the Department, at such times and in such of the Bill. manner as the Department may reasonably require, the expensesincurred Mr Cretney: I beg to second, sir. by the Department in providing such assistance. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that the new clause now stand part of the Bill. All those in favour (2) Where, pursuant to section 10(1), the please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it, the ayes have Department exercises any functions of a it. local authority under section 2, 3, 6, 7 or I now move to the the hon. member for Onchan, Mr 9 in the district of that authority, the Karran, and I ask him to present his new clause, authority shall pay to the Department, at 'Reimbursement of certain expenses by local authorities'. such times and in such manner as the Mr Karran. Department may reasonably require, the expenses incurred by the Department in Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I move this new exercising those functions. clause because I believe that it is fundamentally wrong at the current time, as far as local government is concerned, (3) The expenses payable under subsection that we penalise the more productive local authorities from (1) or (2) shall include a reasonable sum getting on with the job in hand of running local government, in respect of the Department 's and that is building bye-laws. We hear in our different establishment charges. departments of complaints about man head counts and the fact that we cannot do this and we cannot do that because (4) Any question arising under this section we have not got the manpower to do so, yet here are jobs between the Department and a local that should be done by local government and will never be authority shall, in default of agreement, done by local government because it flies against economic be determined by arbitration. ". sense to local government to provide the services that it should be providing at a local government level. (2) In section 34 of the Building Control Act 1991, at This has been a long argument. This House has had the endinsert— sufficient notice on several occasions that I will raise this issue. This new clause should be debated fully. I do not "(5) Where a local authority is not the building blame the commissioners of Ramsey for withdrawing from authority for the authority's district, the

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded t HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K277

authority shall pay to the Department, at approach to addressing these fundamental issues is by such times and in such manner as the means of a careful and considered evaluation of all the Department may reasonably require, the relevant issues. expensesincurred by the Departmentin Furthermore it is logical that it should be the Department performing its functions as building of Local Government and the Environment in consultation authority for that district (including a with the local authorities, that undertakes the necessary reasonable sum in respect of its evaluation and detailed consideration of this important establishment charges). issue. Indeed, hon. members may recall that I gave an undertaking in November 1999 that the Department of (6) Any question arising under subsection (5) Local Government and the Environment would consider between the Department and a local the issue of charging, would consult regarding it and would authority shall, in default of agreement, report back to the Council of Ministers with a " proposal to be determined by arbitration. ". bring forward appropriate, properly thought out, legislation. Mrs Harnan: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. At that time I, and a number of hon. members, were firmly in agreement that this was the proper way to deal The Speaker: Mr Gilbey. with the matter. I apologise that we have not been quicker in doing this, but no department can do everything at once. Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, on behalf of the department, I We have had many other important matters to deal with, should like to remind this hon. House that the amendment particularly waste disposal and something, rightly, very being proposed by the hon. member for Onchan- dear to the heart of the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran - housing. We have been putting our main effort behind The Speaker: It is a new clause. trying to provide more houses as quickly as we can. However, I am pleased to advise hon. members that the - Mr Gilbey: is substantially the same as that moved department has already met to consider a discussion paper, during the consideration of the Public Health Amendment which outlined a range of services currently provided by Bill in November 1999. I am sure that hon. members will the department to local authorities and also raised the recall that on that occasion, whilst several concerns were possibility of the department imposing charges for such raised, there was indeed general support for the principle services. The department has reached some preliminary behind this amendment. It might prove helpful ifI were to conclusions and decided that further enquiry should be remind hon. members of some of the concerns raised back undertaken to investigate the principles connected with in November 1999 as many of them are still relevant today. charging. If the volume of work involved is such that the On that occasion, members of the Department of Local department needs assistance with its study, it will consider Government and the Environment, and several other employing external accountants. members, voiced concerns regarding the lack of proper The department is most anxious to ensure that the consultation with the Island's local authorities. This is financial burden for all services provided by local equally true now, today, as the department was only made authorities should fall upon ratepayers on an equitable basis aware of this new clause last Thursday. Consequently, we throughout the Island. The department considers it may were only able to notify the local authorities on Friday, also be necessary to adopt a corporate approach regarding thus giving them insufficient time to consider the proposed charges made to local authorities, since other government new clause and make their views known to the department. departments are also involved, albeit to a lesser extent, in However, a few, in view of the seriousness of the situation providing services to them. to them have, made their views known and they are At this point, I would again remind hon. members that naturally protesting most strongly that they have not been when the department consulted with the Island's local given proper time to consider this matter and express their authorities in November 1999- as I have said, that is when view. this issue was last debated in this hon. House - the replies Previously, concerns were also expressed that this issue, received indicated that whilst a number were not opposed which would have major implications throughout the Island to the principle of charging for services provided, they felt for the people we all represent regardless of what authority that proper consultation should take place between the they come from, large or small. It was a way of introducing department and themselves on such a major issue. In another form of taxation through local rates. Hon. members fairness, I think that they would also need a lead-in period were also advised in 1999 that it was almost impossible to to enable them to adjust their rate demands and so on in separate this matter from the broader issue of local respect of additional charges which they might have to government reform. The clear message that came from the bear. November 1999 debate was this was a matter that should This is an important issue, Mr Speaker, that the be looked at in its entirety rather than adopting a piecemeal department is anxious to address. It will be considering a approach. paper on it at its March meeting. It will endeavour to report I emphasise that there was support for the underlying its conclusions to another place at its May or June sittings. principle recognising the issue of fairness and the need for Therefore, to conclude, Mr Speaker, I believe that it a level playing field. Having said that, I am sure that hon. would be quite wrong to agree to this amendment, members will appreciate that by far the most effective particularly because there has been no proper consultation

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K278 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

on it with local authorities. Hon. members will be well officer froin Ramsey commissioners and they were unable aware that local authorities, or at least some of them, have to get a replacement to do the work. The work had to be been expressing the view that there should be much more done, there was no choice about that. Therefore the request consultation with them, rather than less. came from the commissioners to the local government Hon. members, for the reasons I have explained, I ask department to take over directly those responsibilities. you to join with me in voting against the proposed new That is one aspect of the particular case we are talking clause in the name of the hon. member for Onchan. about. The issue that the hon. member for Onchan raises is a vastly greater one than the narrow issue of Ramsey The Speaker: Member for West Douglas, Mr Shimmin. trying to resolve a little local difficulty. It brings into focus once again Mr Speaker something on which the previous Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. From the speech speaker touched: the crying need for reform of local of the hon. member who spoke previously, it would appear government on this Island. I am currently a member of the that the department has already accepted the principle. It committee which is looking into that, although we are some is very anxious, keen and enthusiastic. I would like to help way from finding a conclusion to it is not as easy as it to kick start the department by supporting very strongly would appear. But until we get to grips with that and there the motion for the new clause in the name of Mr Karran. It is a fundamental reform of local government on the Island, is something which I believe that any prudent local and until there is a very clear understanding of what authority, after the 20-odd years of looking at local responsibilities are those central government's and which government reform, might have possibly had built into their fall to the various local authorities, a measure such as this thoughts for future plans and progressions. is unfair. I think in the more progressive areas, there is a There is still a select committee of this House looking feeling that more responsibility should come back to local at local government reform. I think that speed of the authorities - a move that I would wholeheartedly support. committee when looking at the constitutional reform Until we get to that stage, it is grossly unfair to bring a indicated how quickly committees can move if they have measure like this forward, forcing costs onto local the motivation. authorities against their will and, in this case, without any Anything I can do ever to speed up the acceptance and consultation whatsoever. the introduction of a reform of local government I support. I think that over a period of time, with proper The inequity that the minister speaks of is there and has consultation with all the local authorities, an been there for years. The unfair burden which is put upon accommodation can be found in the financing of these ratepayers in certain parts of this Island (Members: Hear, particular services. But to come in with an amendment at hear.) has just been tolerated for so long by all of those this particular stage with no consultation, when most local members who have nothing to risk except losing face and authorities are in the process of fixing their rates for the credibility or support within their local areas. I find it sad next year, or have already done so, it is impossible for that, once again, Mr Karran is having to move something them to meet costs which might be incurred. Although the along these lines with the thought of turkeys voting for hon. member refers to building bye-laws, the implication Christmas coming to mind. of his new clause is that all services charged to local The minister has made it clear in his actions and words authorities, or rather carried out on behalf of local regarding local government reform that it will not be before authorities, shall be charged for. the end of this session. Therefore, today is the only In some of the small authorities in particular, that could opportunity. Please, hon. members, start kick starting this be an enormous cost. It could cause a tremendous increase activity and get something done which will get a fairer in the rate burden without an ability either to be consulted balance of payments from all the people on the Island. or to have any advance notice of what those costs are going to be to enable them to budget for them in the forthcoming The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. year. We heard cries about natural justice earlier on today. I Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. mover of think this is one area where natural justice should come this new clause is correct in saying that this whole exercise in. The local authorities, and the ratepayers of the vast was triggered into action by the enforced move by Ramsey majority of authorities on the Island need to be consulted. commissioners to have the building bye-law They need to know precisely what the implications are. It responsibilities transferred to the Department of Local highlights the crying need to get some sense and Government. I would like to repeat what I said in another organisation back into local government which is relevant place; this was in no way a desire on the part of Ramsey to what the Island needs in this present day. town commissioners to avoid their responsibilities. It was I have a final point. Whilst great anguish is being quite the reverse. They were most anxious not to give up expressed on the part of Onchan and Douglas about this these responsibilities. unfair situation, there is equally an unfair situation whereby Ramsey is one of the most responsible authorities on every local authority on the Island now - bar Douglas and the Island and has done its part over the years in Onchan, I understand, or possibly Braddan as well - has to maintaining the local services under its own control. The contribute to the swimming pools. The Island is providing situation was brought about quite simply by the fact that it a major swimming pool facility free of charge to the was unable to get anyone to do the job. The Department of ratepayers of the east of the Island. Every other local Local Government and the Environment had poached its authority has to pay two and half pence - I think that that

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS. TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K279

is the present rate. So there are iniquities on all sides of The point is, Mr Speaker, that everybody is saying that the argument. I hope that if the Department of Local the authorities have not had time, but this clause, once this Government investigates the subject we are debating, all is passed and it is made a section, does not have to be these issues will be borne in mind and it will not just focus given an appointed day order. (A Member: Yes it does. on one specific, issue. (Interj ecri ons) As people have said, Mr Speaker, there is a revising chamber. The Legislative Council could look at The Speaker: Member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe, it. But I feel that this clause should be supported. followed by Mr Braidwood. The Speaker: Mr Rimington. Sorry, hon. member for Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I fully support Peel, followed by the member for Rushen, Mr Rimington. all the comments made by the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. I do not wish to reiterate those comments, but I Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I take exception when I hear the hon. member for West seconded this new clause moved by the member for Douglas, Mr Shimmin, making comments like, 'kick start Onchan. I believe that we have talked for a long period the department'nd 'kick start local government reform'. about reorganisation of local authorities and many moves We are talking about a very serious issue. Only one of the have been made to try to reform them. During that time, four local authorities in my constituency had an opportunity some of the responsibilities of local authorities have to respond to this new clause and that was by personally actually become responsibilities of central government. coming to see me last night with a letter. I believe that if we are not going to have proper reform There has to be consultation, as it is not just building of local government, there are still important regulations, but environmental health and so on. We do considerations. Nobody seems to be able to agree. The hon. not know what the department will choose to charge. As member for Rushen said that she has had representations the hon. member for Ramsey said, the rates are now very made to her recently about this. I think that that just goes nearly set. They will certainly be set by 16th February, to show that perhaps they could not do it at this particular which will be a very short time from now. The rate has to moment because of this year's rates. But it should be be established for those local authorities. It bears brought to all local authorities that they have to pay for considerable financial implications for the small authorities the responsibilities, whoever provides a service. Ifit is an on the Island and I suppose three, or certainly two, of the officer of a local authority, they would have to pay for it. authorities that I have in my constituency are very small Ifit is an officer of government, it is their responsibility. local authorities. It is those issues which over the years have actually We have to have consultation in this matter. The local eroded the responsibilities of local authorities. They may authorities themselves have recognised with the department not be the local authorities'esponsibility, but certainly that there is going to be progression. But we need to know they can be those of government if it has taken them over. what that progression is, we cannot just lay down the law These changes happened when there was not the same and say, 'This is going to happen tomorrow'. It is absolute finance out there, but the rates were still quite high at that nonsense. time, and they have not decreased because government I think the right way forward is the way forward that have taken over responsibility for these issues. Maybe if the minister has suggested. There is a way forward for the the local authorities realised that they had to pay for their local authorities to have to determine exactly what is to be responsibilities under local authority Acts and that in time paid for by them and what is going to be a central more and more responsibilities could be passed back to government function. Trading standards, environmental local authorities, even if it is only to pay for those health, building regulations - the list could be endless, but responsibilities, we would get local authority members these all need to be sorted out between the relevant local being more responsible for the operation of local government authorities and the Department of Local government throughout Mann. Government and the Environment. I would have thought it is these sort of issues, alright I will oppose the new clause at this time, although I the department says it is addressing it, but we have drawn understand the principles that are behind it. Thank you, this matter to the attention of government over a number Mr Speaker. of years. I would hope that members will support Mr Karran's new clause because it addresses the concerns, The Speaker: Mr Braidwood. certainly on building control, but there are many other issues as well that the local authorities should be realising Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a member are their responsibility and for them to pay for. I hope that of the select committee on local government reform, I have members will support the new clause. an inclination to support this clause. (Members: Hear, hear.) I can understand the sentiments expressed by Mr The Speaker: Mr Rimington. Bell, particularly over the Ramsey situation when they lost their building surveyor to the department. When I was in Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not be the Department of Local Government and the Environment, supporting the clause, although not because I do not agree I wanted him to introduce a charge for services carried out with the underlying principles that the costs that are by our building surveyors to those authorities who did not provided should be more equitably spread. I do not support employ their own. it because of the manner in which that is coming about

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K280 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

and the fact that it is trying to introduce local government many remain still doing this service to say, 'Let's shed reform by a sideways means. If it is a weakness of this this cost altogether and throw it back out through the House over many years that it has not managed to produce taxpayer'. The net return per individual must be meaningful local government reform. considerably less when it is spread over the populace of It is really that issue which has to be addressed. It should the Island. not be addressed as one particular issue which we need to So let us not hear too much talking about people being be looking at. Ifwe were looking at building control and poached from Ramsey. Perhaps the individual concerned saying, 'Well we should pass the cost to the department exercised his democratic right, of which we have heard so onto the parishes and the villages', you might say, 'Let' much today, to actually apply for a position which he saw scrap the building control that exists in Douglas, Onchan, as being more attractive. I doubt ifa press gang was headed Peel or wherever and let's take that over as a central over the mountain and said, 'We'e come to capture this government function so there's equity and pass that cost chap here because we haven't got anybody to do the out.'ou have not thought about that. service'. He presumably went along quite willingly. Ramsey then weighed up their options and asked what the Members: Yes, we have. point was. Okay, it is alleged that they could not get anybody to do it, and that may well be so. There is no Mr Rimington: Ah yes, but you have not mentioned it reason to say that in fact it is not true, probably because so far. When we start looking at local government - I think there is such a shortfall of such people with expertise to we are in danger of entering too much into a local do it. government debate - there are huge iniquities all over the If that was the case, I would have imagined, because if place. There are huge inefficiencies in local government, I had been employed with in 10 or 12 miles of Ramsey as indeed there probably will be in central government. and they were offering an incentive scheme and I was There are huge differences in costs in local government, working for one of the other local authorities, that I would in, say, the cost of administration as pence in the pound have been going hot-foot to their door and saying, 'Well between towns and villages. There are huge differences in what's it worth?'f I could have got Z5,000 more out of costs of refuse in relation to rateable value. There are also another local authority, I certainly would have been on the such differences in respect of lighting. Allthese things need transfer list myself. looking at. In fact, it has been done quite often by members within We cannot just pick on one little area and say 'Let' this hon. House. It is called the free market. But do not run whip that one out.'e need to look at the whole issue in away with the idea that the local authorities would not general, not just in terms of cost, but of accountability, welcome a central service, because it would cost them democracy and so forth. We cannot merely rush in and considerably less. The position is, as far as I know, that say, 'Here's a good Bill, let's tack on this one'nd disrupt the local authorities at the moment are having a snook what is happening out there. cocked at them because they are paying this out quite The local authorities, believe it or not, I suspect, are willingly because they prefer the individual service, but actually willing to take on some reforms and take on they are looking around and wondering whether they are changes and probably accept that is going to happen. But doing the right thing. unfortunately, there has not been anything meaningful from As chairman of the local government reform select central government yet. They have not put out anything committee, which meets as early as tomorrow afternoon meaningful either, so there is a bit of work to do. The all contributions willingly accepted from members as to department is doing a bit of work and the responsibility on all these ideas on how it is all going to be done, - my the hon. members to do a bit more themselves. Thank you. appraisal of it is that everybody else has tried before. I seem to pick up these things. Okay, a fresh face is perhaps The Speaker: Mr Cannell. necessary to have another go. The members here have all spoken on it. This is the first step you can take. Okay, it Mr Camiell: Mr Speaker, I am brought to my feet by might not be quite the right way to do it, but it is certainly that remark that in fact the authorities that currently employ a way of achieving it and I admire my hon. colleague on these services and pay for them at the ratepayers cost might this occasion for bringing this forward because in fact we be taken into the fold. I am sure they would be delighted can both stand up and say, 'At least we did some local to do so if they could rely on getting the competency and authority reform, indirectly.'n fact it could be the first the capability of the services which would currently be step to having a proper examination of it. available centrally. But I imagine that those authorities The hon. minister, Mr Gilbey, tells us this is all in hand. which do - I include our own Onchan district That is exactly the same position as this morning. commissioners - take that decision knowingly because they Everything is always going to happen, until someone else have seen what happened at Ramsey. They take it because forces the issue and suddenly then they are on the trail and they think that they are still serving their ratepayers better ready to produce a report any time now. I regret to say I by allowing some of their money to service their am told that you are not allowed to speak about select constituents on a local basis where they have got a man committees until they have completed their work, but I specifically designed to carry out the service and would think that in here we have that privilege. In actual fact, I not transmit it automatically to central government. In fact, forecast that the procrastination which will be necessary the temptation must be there for all three, four, or however to do this will probably talk out the select committee on

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K281

local government reform and will just run out of time in a I am sorely tempted to support it. That is particularly the similar fashion. Ifanybody else can come up with a better case when I read in the newspapers that certain authorities way of doing it, then they are a better man than I am Gunga are going to assume a higher profile and keep us all on our Din. toes. They do not want the duties, but they are going to keep us on our toes. So I have deep reservations when I The Speaker: Sir Miles Walker. see such matters brought forward here by the hon. member. I really have to hold myself under great restraint, because Sir Miles Walker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The my heart says one thing and I hope my common sense principle behind this amendment is one that I am not says something slightly different. opposed to. I think that I have made that clear on a number I think Sir Miles hit the nail on the head. Ifwe are going of occasions in the past. But it was only last month in to move forward, we have got to do it in a constructive Tynwald, I think, when the minister stated very clearly and sensible fashion. The extent of the issues and of the that this issue was in front of the department, that it was problem are certainly not reflected in the amendment which being given consideration and that it will come forward is before us. That only scratches the surface. It really does. with recommendations in due course. You have got to start from the basis that you have got Mr Speaker, these are important matters and it is right different authorities and structures. You have got a that proper consultation takes place. That consultation has difference in the duties and responsibilities which currently not happened. I think that it is clearly on record over a fall on those authorities. You have got different rate bases, large number years that where there are inequalities and and that is just when you are talking about the machine, local authorities are paying for some services and central not about passing duties and responsibilities, or charging government is paying in other areas, there has been a for duties and responsibilities. You have not even got the willingness for central government to take on that base there, but there must be a base from which you can responsibility. work. That is not the same as taking it off the local authority, In terms of the span of what is proposed, I have just or taking over responsibility, but it has happened with written a few down that have come to my mind, but I have environmental health. It is not so long since Douglas already got nine different items where there is a mixture Corporation - I think it was the last local authority on the of either payment by central government in totality or just Island to do so - employed its own environmental health for some authorities. In other items, you have got a inspectors and it was felt to be unfair. Douglas Corporation contribution being made by central government and other felt it was unfair and so there was an amalgamation of the authorities are making up the difference. Others have still environmental office into central government. got to come into that. There is some duties which are not I think that few would argue with the suggestion that it even carried by certain responsibilities and, in fairness to is better in a small place like this that inspections such as them, there is not even a demand for those duties in some happen under environmental health happen under the same of the smaller parishes. doctrine of responsibility in each area, rather than every Unless you can get first of all a sensible structure to local authority having its own attitude towards work from, in terms of the local government structure, and environmental health. I am not certain that the same unless you can then look at it and sort out the duties and argument cannot be put forward for building control, which the responsibilities as they fall, or would fall, then I think is the issue that has brought this particular matter to a head. to go forward just because it is a good idea and move a I would put on record the view of my own local couple of amendments, as the hon. member for West authority, the parish authority of Arbory, which is not Douglas said, to kick start the process, is unlikely to achieve against the proposal. It is against (Interj ections and that. What that will achieve I am afraid is a dog's breakfast. laughter) its introduction in that way. The hon. member It will be a dog's breakfast but the worst thing is it will be who made that quip showed that she knows little about a dog's breakfast that we are going to put into legislation local authorities. Arbory Parish Commissioners are very and that cannot be the right way forward. clearly on record as saying that they are prepared to take I wish the select committee well in their deliberations over and pay for extra responsibilities and are in a position and I hope they are more successful than I was in two- so to do. It is an authority that is alert, active and willing and-a-half years in trying to get some sense made out of to take on responsibilities, but not in an ad hoc way. this local government reform. Perhaps with the combined So my views have not changed. I think that this is the brain power of this select committee, we will see something wrong way to introduce this sort of legislation. I much forthcoming and see it before the general election, but do prefer to follow the lead of the department itself on this not hold your breath. matter, to consider things properly, to consult in the proper I know what the issue is and I know how the hon. mover way and then to introduce changes in an organised fashion. of these amendments feels, but I honestly believe that if I believe, sir, that that is the way forward. we were to move forward in this haphazard fashion we will not be doing anyone anybody any good. It would not The Speaker: The hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. be in the public interest. I readily recognise the inequitable situation which does exist because that is a fact. Mr Quine: When I see amendments such as this, sir, and I reflect that I spent 2'l~ years trying to get some form The Speaker: Can I ask Mr Karran to respond? Mr of agreement between local authorities on a way forward, Karran.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K282 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, the previous speaker Mr Karran: That is the case. He talks about swimming talked of 'common sense in his heart'nd 'a dog' pools. We get down to this level of we have got this, we breakfast'. The whole of local government, when it comes have got that and we have got the other. It is really a childish to payments, is a dog's breakfast. You have a situation level because we know that the situation is not perfect. where a mansion house in one location is the same rateable For 15 years in this House, I have listened to local value as a corporation house in another location. That is government reform and I would tell him, as a member for the sort of thing that we have at the present time, and that Onchan, that I would support a levy as far as swimming is the sort of thing which the hon. mover knows that in his pools is concerned for my local authority if it was to push heart of hearts we are never going to change unless we it back into the domain of local government. chip away at a number of things. He will start talking about I am not against the principle. He is talking to the that and then the curvature of the earth will come in over chairman of the Water Authority that understands the that. We will see no movement at all. problems of trying to finance things. It has not had the I put down a proposal to my good friend, the hon. opportunity of being able to get it out of the pot. member for Rushen. You vote for the principle of this Bill I say to the hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Crowe, that being accepted and get the hon. minister to turn around the department does not want to be in the driving seat. It and support a motion in Tynwald, a financial declaratory has no intentions of wanting to be in the driver's seat. I resolution to pay the legitimate expenses that local understand the problems she has with her local authorities authorities are paying for building bye-laws at the present but she is in here to do what is right, not what would be time and I will withdraw the motion. You get him to do politically popular in her constituency. I hope that she does that, to say that he will do that when it comes past the support the principle. principle, then we will see who has the real sincerity and Let the hon. minister come and give some sort of the real commitment to doing anything. It is used as usual commitment and say to us that he will pay for all the as just personalities instead of facts. legitimate expenses of the progressive local authorities on This clause talks of the department 'may's far as the Island, and I will be happy. But he will not. He knows reasonable expenses are concerned. This House should that the situation will be that, even when it comes down to support this amendment. It also has to go through the Upper the position of my clause, he is still in the driving seat. Do House. It also has to get Royal Assent. not allow the misinformation to come out, they will have The hon. member, Mr Gilbey, is right. The matter was the right to levy the reasonable charges that they think right raised in November, but why have we not had a to levy. That is in my amendment. consultation period? Because there is no political will to The idea that they have then got to charge phenomenal do so. His input is the sad situation of the parish pump amounts and bankrupt local government is absolute outlook. It is blatantly wrong at the present time that we nonsense. We have heard the thing about the heart, but are penalising local authorities, I listen to my good friend when we are talking about common sense read the new from Rushen. He is on the department. I have the lunacy clause. I thank the member for Douglas East Mr of having to put up with, 'I cannot have this nurse', 'I Braidwood. As he says, this issue has not just come out, cannot have this post because of the man head count like a rabbit out of a hat. It has been going on for years. It situation'. We hear from Sir Miles, one of the architects of has got nowhere because there is no political will for it. this proposal, this is some way of trying to get things out We are reducing ourselves to being delegates of local of government. authorities instead of acting like a national government My new clause should be supported. As the hon. and saying what is right and what is wrong. member for Glenfaba knows, it has to get Royal Assent, it I hope that members will support the principle that the has to go through the Upper House beforehand and at the member for Douglas East was saying that this issue has end of the day the department 'may'harge. I hope that been going on for a long time. I thank the hon. member for this House will not take the easy option of running away Peel, Mrs Hannan, for her support. I hope that Sir Miles again. I thank the hon. member for Douglas West for his will support my amendment, will allow the principle to be support. He is quite right. I have tried to get some debated, will let the minister come back and will read the movement. This is the only way we are going to see any clause as it is written, that it 'may's far as the department movement, because it will not happen. I am sorry that the is concerned. If anybody in this House should know the hon. member for Ramsey felt that I was attacking the difference between 'may'nd 'shall', the ex-Chief Minister commissioners at Ramsey. That was far from the truth, should know it and as it is worded in this amendment. because if I were a member of Ramsey Town I do not put this amendment forward as a panacea for Commissioners I would have supported doing away with local government, but what I do put it forward for is about it. It would have been a saving on the rates that you could common sense, fairness and justice at the present time. If pass on for other services without any loss of service to this House does not support it, that sends out the wrong your people. message to local government for doing the right jobs. It I am not criticising Ramsey commissioners. He is also makes a complete farce of the man head count at the slightly off beam that the financial position was not a party present time. Support the principle, let the minister come to the issue. The issue of staff was part of the issue but back and say that he will move a financial resolution for there was a golden opportunity of being able to save money. the local authorities that are being progressive and that their ratepayers are paying for this, and I will be happy to A Member: It was not. withdraw this new clause.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K283

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that the Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Department new clause be agreed in principle. Those in favour, please of Local Government and the Environment I emphasise say aye; against no. The noes have it. that it does not support this new clause for a number of reasons. Firstly and most significantly, all the Island's local Adivision was called for and voting resulted as follows: authorities have not had any opportunity to comment on this new clause. Indeed, unlike the last proposed new For: Mr Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Mr Shimmin, clause, the principle behind this one has not to my Mrs Hannan, Messrs Karran, Cannell - 6 knowledge ever been discussed or debated in this hon. House previously. Against: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Rodan, North, Sir Miles Furthermore the department believes very firmly in Walker, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Rimington, Brown, working with local authorities and seeking their views Houghton, Henderson, Cretney, Duggan, Downie, Bell, on such issues before any decisions are taken about Gelling, The Speaker - 16 proposed legislative changes. Naturally, the department considers it only right and proper that such consultation The Speaker: Hon. members, the new clause fails to should take place. The department is of the opinion that carry in the House - 6 votes for, 16 votes against. it is an issue which should be largely determined by I now call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran the local authorities themselves. After all, we constantly to move his next new clause, 'Remuneration of clerks of hear in this hon. House how people feel that more rather local authorities'. than less power should be given to local authorities and here is a suggestion to curtail and control one of the Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I beg to move: powers that they do have. The department would prefer to allow local authorities Remuneration of clerks of local authorities some autonomy in discretion with regard to the appointment of their clerks. If any rate payers are not satisfied with the performance or remuneration (I) In section 21(6) ofthe Local Government Act 1985, of their clerks, there is no reason those concerns could after "such remuneration as it may determine" why not be expressed direct to the local via insert "subject, in the case of the clerk of the authority the elected representatives on that authority. authority, to the approval of the Department". It might be helpful ifI also emphasise to hon. members that, under the provisions of section 21 of the Local (2) This section applies to a clerk appointed before as Government Act 1985, every appointment of a local well as after the commencement of this section. authority of a parish clerk is subject to approval of the department in any case, but not their remuneration. For I believe that it is important that senior chief executives the reasons I have said, the department feels most strongly and clerks of local authorities should be accountable to that this new clause is totally unjustified. somebody. I move this amendment because of expressions of concern that are being given to me on this like subject, The Speaker: Mrs Crowe. the last subject. However, I expect this House to run away from this subject like they did the last subject, even though Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whilst supporting this one is not as important for the people of the Isle of the minister again on this area of consultation, I have Man. (Interj ections) sympathy with the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. I understand the principles. I understand where he is coming The Speaker: Carry on, hon. member. from on this matter. Perhaps there should be publication of the administrative costs of all local authorities. Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, it is a crazy situation when you can find local authorities where a sub-committee A Member: There is. can be picked to decide on the remuneration of clerks and we can have a situation where other members of that local Mrs Crowe: There is? (Interj ections) Well, not always authority can complain bitterly and little or can be nothing available. I am sure we will hear more about that. Indeed, done about it. the audited accounts should be a matter for debate within Before chief executives or clerks can their get salary the authority and the elected members within that authority, agreed, it should be on the basis that is equal. is an It but I fear they are often not. There are huge differences in absolute scandal that we have such an inconsistent way the administrative cost between the authorities that may that we the clerks and the chief executives pay of local require some explanation, which I think is where the hon. government in the Island. This House should support this member for Onchan, Mr Karran, is coming from. We are proposal and I that will a hope I get seconder. wanting to give local authority reform priority and if one of the priorities within the reform is that the determination Mr Cannell: Yes, I formally second it and reserve my of clerks'alary, and indeed all staff salaries, if that is the remarks, Mr Speaker. case, should be by local government, that should be part of the consultative process for the local government reform The Speaker: Mr Gilbey. But it would be most inappropriate to introduce

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K284 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 remuneration through a new clause or even the Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I - wonder determination of the remuneration in a new clause in this what the hon. member would suggest as appropriate rates manner. for remuneration of clerks in these various areas. I do not think he has given this proposal as much thought as perhaps The Speaker: Mr Cannell. the previous clause which he was proposing, which did have some logic behind it. First of all, there is the principle Mr Cannell: Yes, Mr Speaker, I can hardly rationalise of local democracy (AMember: Hear, hear.) and that is my views in my preceding speech. Although I was a very important. Ifyou are going to have local democracy seconder, I cannot possibly see that you could get a and I believe that we should in whatever form that it is universal rate for being clerks of local authorities in the going to be, they have got to have the right to determine same way you could get a universal rate for so many other how they operate and not everything is going to be decided jobs. Ifyou are a government chief executive, it is almost by big nanny in central government. That is one essential incumbent upon you to do similar duties, although you thing. might argue that in fact being a chief executive of one It is true that local authority accounts are available for department is considerably less onerous than being chief inspection but after a while, I am afraid to add that there executive of another. That is patently obvious, and the same are still, as of last December, five audited accounts to thing would apply to local authorities. March 1999 which have not quite been lodged with the There does not seem to be accountability. The hon. department yet. They have not gone through the full member for Rushen said there should be audited accounts. process. How would you determine what these clerks are We have all seen the diminution of money, sums of going to get? Should we take the rateable value of Bride, government money which were available for publication, 6157,000, with a huge population to match and determine their remuneration on rateable available to every taxpayer of the Island. You could go value, and give Bride a really along and get individual sums. I well remember when I good sum of money? It is just convenient that it has a larger wasteland and other industrial used to write for the newspapers being on the end of a works in that vicinity. whole load of invective, because we had published the costs In my own area, one of the parishes has quite a - of each individual main public servant in the Isle of Man. considerable rateable value nearly up to the size of the village - but that is run the Of course, no one knew what some of them were getting by particular individual who would refuse, in to take more until that came out and they were horrified. fact, money. He works very hard and provides an excellent service to the ratepayers That is the position we are in now. There appears to be for very little money at all. You are introducing all sorts the capability, so I am with the principle of setting virtually of imbalances and you would need to look at the services anything at a whim. In fact, it does not even seem to be that each individual authority was applying. subject to a majority of the elected members of those local Different authorities that might appear to be the same authorities. It just seems to be if you catch it on the right are in fact different in their enthusiasms and interests. They night, do you have a sufficient majority to be able to do it? are providing more in one for less money or more in one We are hearing of one individual who is being paid about for more money. No two authorities are the same and the twice what we are getting for doing this, and he is a clerk idea that the learned minister from central government or to a local authority. I am not too sure whether in fact we the officer could go down the list and say, 'Z5,000 for you, should name it. I had probably better not. We are hearing 66,500 for you, and 529,000 for you's absolutely of similar moves, which are going to make the Island a ridiculous. Sorry, member, but this one is a non-starter. complete laughing stock where a local authority is going come to along and try and pitch for money from the The Speaker: Mr Downie. Treasury to fight a legitimate consideration of that same government that is going to consider whether they should Mr Downie: I am brought to my feet by a remark that have the money. was made by the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Cannell, This is the of nonsense we are dealing with in type and, when he referred to clerks as bandits lining their own fact, we are to and an if going try get equal authority pockets. I take that as a very offensive remark. I know a to clerks who act like payment that, compared with some good many clerks in this Island, who are only on a part- who do a and are very, very good job, who very time salary. They put a lot of hours in and they are very and undervalued very under-recognised, there will be very conscientious about the job that they do. In this present significant considerations. We have one gentleman who I economic climate, ifit was not for that group of dedicated can think of, only because of my personal friendship with individuals, we would have a lot of difficulty in getting him, who has been in office for more than 30 years and clerks, particularly for some of the smaller local authorities. enjoys great respect of the Island. Can you honestly say We have to be very very careful. that people like that, who have a massive workload and They are servants of local government and whatever are quite content to do it and cover the Island in glory goes on in that local authority is subject to some scrutiny from a local authority point of view can line up against by the Department of Local Government and the some of the bandits that seem to be just out to line their Environment. For the benefit of those who have not got a own pockets? local authority background and from the tone of some of the debate it would appear that some of you do not The Speaker: Mr Rimington. understand the position, I must say that in the larger local

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS. TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K285

authorities, the towns in particular, a lot of their staff give a minister a responsibility like this - to approve the salaries and conditions are laid down by NALGOand they level of remuneration without setting some guidelines. On are predetermined, as is the salaries for a good number of that basis alone, Mr Speaker, I think we should vote against. the staff within the organisation. I would not like to be the person with the wisdom of The Speaker: Can I call upon the mover to reply? Mr Solomon who came up with the solution in the Island where Karran. we balance the workload of every local authority clerk and then set a salary rate. That is a matter for them to decide. Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I find such As has been said, there are winners and losers but the misinformation in this House incredible. I listened to the people who represent the local authorities are an elected hon. member for Douglas West about his days in local body. If a situation arises where somebody thinks that a government. You cannot get rid of a clerk or an official, as clerk is perhaps getting more than he is worth, they should you can of us. We are elected every five years and they are be answerable to their own ratepayers. It should be an issue not. very much for them and not an issue to be dragged out and I must say that I find Sir Miles'nput disappointing as debated in the House. It is like us. If people do not like well. I am trying to put a safety valve in local government what we are doing they get shot of us. (AMember: Hear, in order that we do not have the ridiculous situation, as we hear.) If there is enough feeling within the local authority have in certain local authorities, where the lunatics have - (Interj ection) Well, it can be done. taken over the authority. I put this amendment down I will not be supporting the new clause. I do not think it because people from local government were complaining will achieve anything. I understand the sentiment of the to me about what a scandal it is that they are able to mover and his thoughts about it, and the situation at the manipulate a minority in a local authority to give the time whereby he felt that the strength of the personality of contract of employment. The minister can only agree it a particular clerk hijacked the respective local authority, because, ifhe does not, they can be sued under employment and that he became stronger than the elected members. legislation. I wish this House would wake up and start That is something that they have to live with. living in the same world as myself. I think and I think my There is an opportunity for all of the local authority track record is a lot more close to reality than those of accounts to be properly scrutinised. It does not take very many in this House. (AMember: Hear, hear.) long for local authority electors to hold a requisition I listened to the hon. member again for Glenfaba telling meeting and deal with all these issues, but I do not think us that this issue has never been raised. I raised this issue that this House is the right place to have these issues as far back as 1997 and since then, I have used this Bill as discussed. a member of this assembly as the most effective vehicle to I was going to just say another thing about local try and do something about it. That is our job as members authority reform. I am an advocate of 'Time for Change'. of this hon. House. This is a vehicle relating to the local (Members: Hear, hear.) Whatever we feel about the local government (miscellaneous provisions) legislation. It is a authorities, there is going to have to be at some stage a local government issue that can be put into this Bill. That sitting down and a thrashing out of the whole issue. There is why it has waited from 1998 to today. are far too many anomalies in the system and I think that I thank the hon. member, my colleague; for at least if a commonsense approach is made, we can come up with having the decency to grant a secondary proposal so that a satisfactory answer. Thank you, Mr Speaker. we can debate the principle. At the end of the day, if a contract of employment is signed, there is nothing anyone The Speaker: Sir Miles Walker. can do. The majority of local authorities can do nothing once the contract has been signed. Ifwe are talking about Sir Miles Walker: I align myself with views in line democracy, that is what I am trying to do - prevent it from with those of the hon. member who has just resumed his being a fait accompli. (InterJ'ections) It is all well and good, seat. The only addition I would make to those remarks is but we know in this hon. House of not just one local that it seems to me unfair to impose this sort of authority, but two local authorities where the administration responsibility on the Department of Local Government and has been an absolute scandal. Nothing has been done; all - the Environment that is, to approve the remuneration of we get is the minister belittling, misquoting, giving the clerk without giving the department some guidelines. misinformation, and that is what we have come to expect Are we asking them to approve it so that all the in this hon. House. remuneration in the different local authorities will be I accept that the principle of this new clause will not be similar? Are we doing it so that a small local authority accepted. It will go down in the annals of Hansard and in does not exceed what the clerk of the largest gets? It seems years to come people will say that it was a missed to me we are giving them an impossible task, and I guess opportunity; because personalities got in the way of that if the hon. member, Mr Karran, was minister for the common sense. Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. department he would have a different view on this issue than the present minister. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that the new clause be agreed in principle. Will those in favour Mr Karran: Of course I would. please say aye; against, no.

Sir Miles Walker: Of course he would. It is wrong to Adivision was called for and voting resulted as follows:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded K286 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

For: Mrs Hannan and Mr Karran - 2 Mrs Hannan: It is all very well increasing the fixed penalty for litter, but we have just dealt with an Against: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Rodan, North, Sir Miles amendment to this legislation dealing with cars, which Walker, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Rimington, Brown, you could say are litter too. They are just left lying about Houghton, Henderson, Cretney, Duggan, Braidwood, here there and everywhere, and yet there is no fixed Mrs Cannell, Messrs Shimmin, Downie, Bell, Corkill, penalty fines on any of these vehicles. Maybe they are Cannell, Gelling and the Speaker - 21 not deemed litter - but how many times has the legislation actually been used as a fixed penalty for The Speaker: Hon. members, the new clause in litter? I can remember one occasion, when somebody principle fails to carry in the House, 2 votes in favour, 21 had been throwing sandwiches or something out of a votes against. We will now revert to the main Bill. What is vehicle. That is my understanding of how many times marked clause 5 will now be clause 6. I call upon the the litter Act has been used, and I would like it spelt minister to move. out. We can increase the fine to K1,000 or, f100,000, but if nobody is caught under the legislation they are Mr Gilbey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause going to continue to do it. People with cigarette ends corrects an error in the Public Health (Amendment) Act often just throw them down because they do not 2000. Section 9(1) of the 2000 Act substitutes section 24- consider them litter. It is a despicable thing for anyone Ruinous buildings - of the Building Control Act 1991, to do. They are just left lying there for government and which enables a local authority by notice to require the local authorities to pay huge sums of money to have owner or occupier of a ruinous or unfinished building to them cleared up. If we are going to increase fixed repair, complete or demolish it. penalties for litter it has got to be made to work. The have to use the that have. Subsection (4) provides that where the notice is served police got power they on a person who was, but is no longer the owner, he is The Cretney. liable for failing to comply with a notice unless he tells Speaker: Mr the local authority who the new owner is 'Not less than 21 Mr Cretney: I will be very brief, Mr Speaker. I rise to days after service of the notice on him.'his should of make the same point. This kind of anti-social behaviour course read 'within 21 days after service of the notice on extends to who have dogs. There are lots of him'nd this clause makes the necessary correction. people people now who are more sensible when they take their dogs for Section 10 of the 2000 Act substitutes section 13 a walk, but there are people who abuse the law. There are Maintenance of open land - of the Local Government fines of up to Z1,000 for litter despoiling our beautiful (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984, which enables a local Island. It is long overdue. It is not the fault of the minister authority by notice to require the owner or occupier of who is taking this matter before us today, but it is something untidy or neglected open land to tidy it up. Subsection (2) we should view with more seriousness than perhaps we contains a provision similar to section of the 1991 9(4) do. Act, which was referred to previously, with the same error which is corrected this clause. by A Member: Hear, hear. I stress that unfortunately, due to these two errors in the Public Health (Amendment) Act 2000, various local The Speaker: Mr Karran. authorities and the department have been unable to pursue matters ruinous regarding properties and untidy land. These Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I do find it incredible, amendments are essential enable so. to them to do I hope these crocodile tears as far as litter is concerned. One are non-controversial. they completely I beg to move. considered about five different new clauses to this piece of legislation. We might as well pass this piece of legislation Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir. because it is farcical at the present time. Litter is a responsibility of local government; any local government The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that clause that has a progressive attitude towards litter is actually 5 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please say going against their ratepayers as far as the costs are aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause concerned. Whether this clause goes through this Bill or 6 as printed, sir. not will make no difference at all until the fundamental issue is faced of getting local authorities to do something Mr Gilbey: Clause 6, Mr Speaker, is even less responsible. controversial than anything that has gone before. This The member talked about dog muck. The fact of the clause enables the fixed penalty for dropping litter which matter is we looked at that as well. We are trying to bring is currently f10 to be varied by order made by the a new clause to this Bill on the same lines as what we are Department of Local Government and the Environment, talking about for the building bye-laws to encourage local but subject to the approval of Tynwald. I beg to move. authorities. My local authority in Onchan has its own dog wardens, but really it is not in the interest of ratepayers. Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir. They might as well try and get government to pay for it. The service is so wilfully inadequate that they have been The Speaker: The member for Peel. frustrated and they have done it, but progressive local

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill —Consideration of Clauses Concluded HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K287 government, as represented by of my local authority is Government is considering updating the Dogs Act. being penalised. This clause and this Bill is window- The hon. member for Onchan I am sorry to say again is dressing. wrong. There is nothing personal in this, but frankly he is wrong. Those are not just crocodile tears; I think everyone Mr Speaker: The member for Castletown, Mr Brown. in this hon. House is deeply concerned by litter. In this connection, I agree with the remarks of the hon. member Mr Brown: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I respond to for Castletown. We need more enforcement, but who is to some of the comments from the previous speaker, I think do it? Who is going to pay for special litter wardens? How it should be clear that this is not just a matter that affects do they fit in to personnel budgets when we are short of local authorities. It affects departments of government as vital people like doctors, nurses et cetera, and the police well. are concentrating on major issues? I can make two positive The point made by the hon. member of Douglas South, suggestions. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Education, Mr Mr Cretney, about how we should take a greater pride in Rodan, could consider adding to the school curriculum as our Island and keep it tidy is a a valid one. Whilst the a minor part that pupils be taught the importance of being House is happy and content to pass legislation to bring in clean and tidy and not throwing litter about- all sorts of offences, the area we let ourselves down on dramatically is enforcement. (Members: Hear, hear.) We Mr Henderson: We always are, minister. have, for example, legislation where it is an offence for dogs to foul public places. I still get complaints from people Mr Gilbey: We are thinking of having a recycling who say 'The dogs still continue to foul.'he answer is officer and it would be quite logical for him, in talking lack of enforcement. We have litter legislation whereby about recycling, to tall people to recycle not on the roads people can be prosecuted for dropping litter, and in and in the fields, but in the proper places. I will try to Castletown that has happened on a couple of occasions, make sure that is the message that that person gets across. but there are no litter wardens. I do not know the exact I beg to move that clause 6 stand part of the Bill. figure, but my department expends well in excess of 6500,000 of taxpayers'oney per year to collect litter and The Speaker: The motion is that clause 6 stand part of clean the streets. Ifwe all took the trouble to put cigarette the Bill. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no. stubs or refuse into bins, that could make a big difference The ayes have it. The ayes have it. in the amount of money that needs to be spent on sweeping Clause 7, sir. the streets. That money might be put to a better, more productive use. We all in society have a role to play on Mr Gilbey: Hon. members will be glad that at last we this. come to the end of this Bill, which, though short in clauses, The hon. member said that it was down to the local has been long in discussion. This clause gives the Bill its authorities. They have a role in their own land, and I accept short title. No provision for commencement is included that. They do not on the public highway, because that is a and the Bill will accordingly come into force on the day matter for my department, except where we delegate to on which Royal Assent is announced to Tynwald. In view the local authority the responsibility to act on our behalf. of the various important matters covered by the Bill, I hope The key issue in all of the complaints that the public have this will be as soon as possible. and the complaints that we have when we talk about these Finally, I would like to thank my two colleagues in the department, and issues is that if we want to effectively tackle the problems Mr Quine Mr Houghton (A Member: of litter in our society, we have to have effective Hear, hear.) for their assistance and support, and the officers of the department for all the work have done. enforcement throughout the whole Island. That is where they I thank other hon. members for helping to get the Bill approved in we are deficient and that is why we are not as effective the form in which it has been originally presented. with the laws that we pass as we would hope to be. That issue must be tackled by government in future. Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir. The Speaker: Now I call upon the minister to reply. The Speaker: The motion is that clause 7 stand part of the Bill. Will all those in favour please say aye; against, Mr Gilbey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. member no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. for Peel, Mrs Hannan, asked how often the fixed penalty for litter had been used. I am afraid the answer is very seldom, though the hon. member for Castletown said there had been two cases in Castletown. There is not much Procedural incentive for anyone to take action when the fine is only f10, so I would hope that having a higher fine might The Speaker: The Income Tax Bill for second reading, encourage more action. Mr Corkill. I am very glad that the hon. member for Douglas South, Mr Cretney, shares everyone's concern about this. I am Mr Cannell: Excuse me, Mr Speaker, on a point of sure we are all united in our concern. Regarding dogs, I order. Have we not already agreed that the final business think I am right in saying they are specifically covered by of the afternoon will be the resolution proposed by Mr the Dogs Act; but I can say that the Department of Local Braidwood?

Procedural K288 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

The Speaker: No, sir, the motion was that it would be That the House consider the motion tabled under the final business on the agenda, as I understood it, but if Standing Order 37(4) by the hon. member for Douglas it is the wish of the House that- East, Mr Braidwood, before the adjournment ofthe House.

Mr Cannell: That was not the terms of the resolution The Speaker: Right, I have a motion before the House. as put. The terms were that it would be the last business. It Do I have a seconder? did not say the agenda. Mr Duggan: I will second that, Mr Speaker. Mr Cretney: Hear, hear. The Speaker: Does anybody wish to speak to it? The Speaker: In which case I am a servant of the House and am guided by the House. Ifit is the wish of the House, Mr Cannell: Yes, sir. then I will invite Mr Braidwood to move. Is that the wish of the House? The Speaker: Mr Cannell.

Members: Yes. Mr Cannell: I have no firm views on the motion - in fact the motion has not yet been put. As I understand it, Mr Gilbey: No. the earlier resolution was to decide whether it should be put. The terms are quite clear: 'resolves to consider as the Mrs Hannan: No. last business at this sitting.'t does not say that it should be any other sitting or that it should follow the agenda. We Mr Corkill: Mr Speaker, I am expecting to move the have already taken a vote on it and, ifit counts for anything, next item on the agenda, which is the Income Tax Bill, as that is what we resolved three hours ago, sir. set out on the agenda paper, which has been before members for the statutory period of time. Mr Houghton: Hear, hear. The Speaker: I am just seeking the guidance of the The Speaker: Mr Karran. House. Mr Cretney.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I see just a lot of Mr Cretney: Mr Cretney, I did not speak the last time posturing as far as this situation is concerned. I believe when Mr Braidwood moved the principle that under that it would be wrong to debate this issue at this House at standing order 37(4) the House resolved to consider as the this present time. The hon. member for Glenfaba wanted last business at this sitting the following motion. However, notice and and should be given notice. I am not interested, I think we have an obligation, given the seriousness of believe it or not, even though I seem to suffer from it, in what is laid out in the proposed motion, to consider it today glorious defeats. This whole situation presents the danger and not to leave it over. Leaving things like this up in the of a great glorious defeat. The hon. mover would be air would be quite unsatisfactory. We need to get it resolved right to it on the first item of the at the next and ensure that the boil is lanced once and for all. (A put agenda sitting of this hon. House. Member: Hear, hear.) I have got plenty of things I can do Maybe by then something might have been done to and this situation back on a tonight, but I would be happy to stay here and get this try get to level, debate put to bed. equitable and sensible playing field. Adebate tonight will not achieve that. We will see a number of bloody noses, Members: Hear, hear. which might be very good for the media, but at the end of the day we need to find a way forward that can get our The Speaker: Mr Braidwood. services back to normality in our office. That is what I want to see, so I think the proposer of the motion is quite Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I right. As much as it is not popular, I believe that he would initially moved standing order 37(4), I did not want to be right to have it as the first item on the next sitting's interfere with any of the order paper and with the legislative agenda. programme. It was to be taken at the end of the order paper. I suggest; because time is of the essence, that I formally The Speaker: Anybody else, that we have a motion request that my motion is taken immediately after questions before the House? (Interj ecti on) Sir Miles. at next week's sitting. Sir Miles Walker: Yes, simply to say, Mr Speaker, that Members: No, go now. I can go along with the suggestion of the hon. member, but we decided this morning by 15 votes to 9, as I Mr Brown: Mr Speaker, I think this matter now has understand it, to take this matter tonight. (Interj ection) I been put before the public forum with two members of the thought the decision was made. House's name put up front. This matter is of such importance now because it is in the public arena. I move The Speaker: Hon. members. Do you wish to reply, under standing order 7(2): sii?

Procedural HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K289

Mr Brown: Yes, Mr Speaker, I do wish to reply because mistake over the Clerk of Tynwald (A Member: Hear, I think it is important. Members made their mind up earlier hear). It has become entrenched positions, nobody giving, today. They decided by a majority that they wished to take nobody moving with the wind, inflexible. this item as the last business of the sitting. That was the Mr Speaker we had the meeting in private and nothing motion before the House, and was agreed to by 15 votes to was resolved. You called a meeting on January 8th with 9, including the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran, who members. Nothing was resolved. I called a meeting of has just said we should not. I was another one who said members on January 16th, when two members of the we should not, but by 15 votes to 9 this House agreed to Tynwald Management Committee came along, the hon. take this business as the last business. We have to deal member for Peel and the hon. member for Malew and with this issue. It is not fair to the people involved, on Santon. At that time, it was proposed that the majority of whatever side they are. We have a responsibility now members write to the Tynwald Management Committee because the hon. member for Douglas East has brought and that letter of January 16th was circulated. Fourteen this matter to the public forum - that is, this House. We are members out of 19 who were available signed it. That was making fools of ourselves if we say 'Oh, let us leave it to to direct our elected representatives on the Tynwald next week.'or goodness'ake, Mr Speaker, either this Management Committee to make an immediate approach matter is of such importance to the hon. member for to Professor St. John Bates with a view to him continuing Douglas East and the other 14 who signed it or it is not. I in his present position for a further period of not less than can say it is of importance to everybody involved. The three months. whole affair is sad and we need to get it sorted out once Following that we fully expected the committee to take and for all. If that means sitting here until 8 or 9 o'lock immediate action in the reorganisation of the structure of tonight then that is what we are here for, and let us do it. the office of the Clerk of Tynwald, to allow for the appointment of a deputy Secretary of the House, senior The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the deputy Clerk of Tynwald with a view to retaining Professor House is that the House now continue to sit to debate the St John Bates'nvaluable service to us for the foreseeable motion standing in the name of Mr Braidwood. Will all future. those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have Those members received a reply from you, Mr Speaker, it. The ayes have it. on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee on January 17th declining both proposals, but agreeing to meet Mr Gilbey: Can we have an adjournment for a few in the millennium conference room at 1 o'lock on minutes? I for one want to go to the thie veg, Mr Speaker. Thursday 25th January - this Thursday - to what intent, I It is quite unfair that we should embark on a debate do not know because you had declined both our proposals. affecting Mrs Hannan and myself and I should not be able Another letter, after receiving that letter, was sent to to leave the chamber for say two or three hours. just the three members of the Tynwald Management Committee who had been elected by this hon. House asking The Speaker: In fairness to everybody the sitting be them if they would contact me by 4 o'lock on Monday. A adjourned for 10 minutes. letter was then received from the Tynwald Management Committee, saying that we are in receipt of your and other Members: Hear, hear. colleagues letters dated 16th and 19th January, basically saying, Mr Speaker that, 'there was a possibility that the The House adjourned at 5.32 p.m. timescale constitutes a threat to the working of the committee and may well be a breach of privilege and this letter should not be taken as a response, negative or positive Tynwald Management Committee— to your correspondence'. Consideration of Motion Adjourned Mr Speaker, I think the majority of the House needs to retain the services of the Clerk of Tynwald. He is a renowned expert in constitutional The Speaker: Mr Braidwood. law. He is independent, he gives us advice and has done since 1987. I feel and the other members who signed the letter felt that our elected Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me members were not taking cognisance of our views at all. I no great pleasure to bring this motion before this House think 14 out of 19 speaks for itself. this afternoon, but the majority of the members of this House have become frustrated in their efforts in trying to A Member: Out of 24. retain the services of the Clerk of Tynwald. In January 1997, three members of this House were elected to the Mr Braidwood: There were only 14 who could sign Tynwald Management Committee - the hon. member for that letter. Mr Karran was missing from the chamber and I Glenfaba, the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member could not ask the representatives from the Tynwald for Malew and Santon - to represent the interests the of Management Committee or yourself as an ex-officio members of this House on the Tynwald Management member of the Tynwald Management Committee. Committee. Mr Speaker, the only way that we can circumnavigate For the last four years, they have done a worthwhile this situation is to replace some members on the Tynwald job, but I honestly believe that there has been a fundamental Management Committee, and that is why my motion is in

Tynwald Management Committee —Consideration of Motion Adjourned K290 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

front of you today. We have to go forward, somebody has have no-one in this House to protect our privilege and our to give. If the management committee will not give, then rights. some who have been elected by this House will have to be I cannot understand the position that you all have taken replaced. I have tried to make the case as short and as with regard to a committee of the House. Even the Speaker succinct as possible, Mr Speaker, and therefore I beg to is not protecting our rights. The Speaker is the chair of move: this committee and he is not protecting the rights of members of a committee of your House. I find it incredible. That the hon. member for Glenfaba and hon. member for Peel be discharged from service on the Tynwald The Speaker: Hon. members, there are points of order. Management Committee, and two members be now elected Sir Miles Walker. to serve in their place." Sir Miles Walker: Yes, Mr Speaker, I thought there Mr Gilbey: A point of order, Mr Speaker, It is quite was a point of order, sir. unfair and wrong that the Clerk of Tynwald and the secretary to the House of Keys should be sitting here (A The Speaker: I thought you had one, sir. Member: Hear, hear.) while it is his job that is debated. There is a further point: even the lowest criminal is entitled Sir Miles Walker: Not a point of order. to a legal adviser and the person sitting in that chair is meant to be the impartial adviser to everyone in this hon. The Speaker: What did you have to say, sir? House, whatever side they are on or whatever they say, if they are in a single position or in the majority position. I Sir Miles Walker: Mr Speaker, my personal view call, in fairness, that the hon. Clerk of Tynwald should accords very much with the one that you told us about a withdraw and someone else should be appointed to take few moments ago, but sir, I do understand and like the his place, who is capable of advising impartially all hon. member for Peel says, I am not one of those who is members. named and the resolution is not out to remove me. We I think that is only fairness, after all, if we were common should pay a lot of attention to the views of the hon. criminals we would be entitled to have someone available member for Glenfaba and the hon. member for Peel on to advise us. It would look very fine to the world outside, this issue. I think it is wrong if we just think of our own and I am delighted the press and radio are here, if we are positions and ignore those, as it is so easy to do. not entitled to have an independent person who can advise Mr Speaker, I said earlier on today that I did not mind all members of this hon. House if any technical points arise. whether the clerk sat there or not. My views will be I am sure that the world would think it extraordinary that expressed nevertheless. But I do think that we should pay someone whose job is being discussed in this way should regard to the views of the hon. member, Mr Gilbey, and be sitting in the middle of the discussion. the hon. member, Mrs Hannan. Mr Speaker, I have to say I think it is a great shame that the deputies to the clerk, to Mrs Cannell: On a point of order, sir. Could you clarify, the secretary to the House of Keys, have been allowed to please, that during a session of the House of Keys that the go home knowing that this resolution was likely to be clerk acts as counsel to your good self, which is one of the discussed this afternoon. I have to say that and I think it is many hats that he has to wear and wears well? a great shame, sir, we only have one situation in front of us and that is to adjourn the debated. I would have liked to Mr Gilbey: Perhaps we should have an independent get it over tonight, sir. (Interj ections) adviser. The Speaker: Are you making a motion then, Sir Miles The Speaker: At this point in time and at this hour Walker, that the debate be adjourned, sir? there is no other clerk available in the building. It is the wish of this House that this matter is debated. I personally Sir Miles Walker: Mr Speaker, I thought I made it clear have no great problem with the secretary of the House being that as a House we have to pay due regard to the member present. He could after all sit in the public gallery (A for Glenfaba and the member for Peel. Ifthat is the way to Member: Hear, hear.). If it is the wish of the House to pay regard then, yes sir, I will move: adjourn on the supposition of the hon. member for Glenfaba that the clerk should not be present, then so be it, but I That the House do now adjourn. personally, as your Speaker, see no great conflict of interest, but I am guided by the House. The Speaker: Right, there is an adjournment before the House. Is there a seconder? Mrs Hannan: A point of order, Vainstyr Loayreyder. You see no difficulty with the clerk being present, but you Mr Brown: I second, Mr Speaker, sir. are not being asked by this House to be removed from this committee. Therefore I think your position is different to The Speaker: Speaking to the adjournment. the position of the member for Glenfaba and myself. We have no advice. We have no independent advice. We are Mrs Hannan: I have no problem whether we adjourn being criticised for not bending to the demands and we tonight or not - that is not the point. The point is that there

Tynwald Management Committee —Consideration of Motion Adjourned HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K291

is no-one to protect two members of a committee - no- Mr Henderson: So that the two members present can one. You heard the Speaker. He is not protecting our be satisfied. interest. The clerk who was clerk to the management committee is not pointing out that this is a breach of Mr Karran: It is going to make no difference. This is privilege. This is advice that we have had. How many times the wrong approach in my opinion, as I have said before, have select committees been asked about various things Vainstyr Loayreyder. I believe the situation was caused by and all that anyone could say is when they last met and another misunderstanding, which the junior member for how many times they had met? No demands were made of Douglas North made as well. a select committee, no demands whatsoever. You are actually demanding that we do something that is not within Mr Henderson: Rubbish! Shame on you! our position to do. Mr Cretney: We are all equal here. The Speaker: We are speaking to the adjournment. Mrs Crowe: Some are more equal than others. Mr Gilbey: I am not afraid to debate the matter, now or at any time. It is not that. I think you have got to have Mr Karran: Some more equal than others, you are quite someone completely impartial sitting as secretary to the right. House of Keys to advise all members without fear or favour. Whatever the hon. Clerk of Tynwald might say, he The Speaker: Hon. member! cannot be expected to do this. This is something deeply personal to him and what is going to be said will deeply Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, the way that it was affect him. put at the beginning was that this was the last item on the It is only fair to everyone that we should receive agenda, and that if we did not get to the end of the agenda completely impartial advice from someone who is not it should go on the following week. interested in this in any way at all. You would be just as wrong to have Mrs Cullen there, as to have the Clerk of A Member: Rubbish! Tynwald. We must have someone independent who is capable of advising any member of this hon. House Mr Karran: Not Rubbish, Vainstyr Loayreyder, it is impartially. I am sure that natural justice demands that. factual. That has happened numerous times before. (Mr Henderson interjecting) Yes, I am very aware of that - and The Speaker: Mr Henderson. if you understood it would be right. Debating this in public will serve no useful purpose (A Member: We Mr Henderson: Mr Speaker, speaking to the Yes!). will see more parties divided on this issue. I wrote as are adjournment, this is going on beyond the bounds of you aware, Vainstyr Loayreyder, on December 19th about what I think reasonability. Everyone is talking about the credibility of of your management committee. I am to give the letter to the House, but the longer we drag this out, the more the happy every member of this hon. House to let them know views credibility of this House is going to come under scrutiny. my concerning the management committee. I am also concerned about There must be a way forward to progress this debate the cherry picking. These two members are probably not tonight. Perhaps the learned clerk will agree to withdraw, on the most unpleasant list, as I am. I bet there are not or perhaps there is a way of transacting business without a many other members of this House who are as unpopular clerk. Can we make a telephone call to the present clerk of as I am. the Legislature to step in at half an hour's notice? Is there any way we can progress it tonight Mr Speaker? For Mrs Cannell: I thought we were speaking on the goodness sake, we need to get this matter resolved. I agree adjournment, sir. with the hon. member for Castletown who originally was keen to get on with it. We did vote 15 votes to 9 this The Speaker: We are speaking on the adjournment. morning to deal with this as the last business of the day. If we adjourn it again, we are just to be in this situation going Mr Karran: On the adjournment, Vainstyr Loayreyder, next week all over again. Surely it is better to on with get I believe that we have not even got that right. We are cherry- it now, and in some sort put of temporary situation that picking on that. We are picking on the two members for will be agreeable to most members so that we can conduct Glenfaba and Peel. He is on the committee as an elected the business, sort this thing out once and for all and pull member as well, but the difference is, Vainstyr Loayreyder, out of this mess something positive. you are there in your own right, as is the Eaghtyrane. The hon. member for Malew and Santon is not there as the Ard The Speaker: Mr Karran. Shirveishagh. I know you want to make different rules for the Council of Ministers, but it is not right. Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, as a senior member I support the adjournment. I believe they have the right of this hon. House, I find it incredible. The member here to have notice given to them to work out their defence. I is talking about withdrawing the secretary, but he can read might still think that what they did was wrong, but I believe about it in the newspaper. What is the big deal? that it is wrong if we go ahead. It is cherry-picking - we

Tynwald Management Committee —Consideration of Motion Adjourned K292 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

are just getting a boot reaction. Mr Rimington: Speaking to the adjournment, which I am fully in favour of, I find it distasteful - that we are Mrs Hannan: Why are we wrong? washing our dirty linen in public (AMember: Hear, hear). As a junior member who knows not of the various standing The Speaker: Hon. members- orders and cares not really for many of the standing orders, I wish I was not here and sometimes I wish I was not even Mr Karran: I support the adjournment. I think it is elected, when we are discussing this process. I would wrong. I do not think you will achieve anything tonight. support the adjournment so that the members can marshal We have got the worst of all scenarios now. We should their facts and, if possible, we may be able to reach a have gone for what I said in the first place. situation where it does not have to come out. These matters should not really be discussed in this public arena. The Speaker: Hon. member for Ayre speaking to the adjournment. The Speaker: Mr Brown, member for Castletown.

Mr Quine: We are here after the scheduled time because Mr Brown: I seek an absolute clarification that there is this House determined that this matter in substance should nobody else available in the clerk's office who can take be settled tonight. That is perfectly legitimate and was well over the seat of secretary. carried and that is why we are here. We have entered into that debate and the point has been made by both Mr Gilbey The Speaker: There is a lady secretary, but she is hardly and Mrs Hannan that they feel, being the parties accused, in a position to give advice. that they should have or they would like to have access to advice. I honestly cannot say that is unreasonable. Mr Henderson: Can somebody be called? So here we are. We are left - with a fairly clear-cut decision. There is a need to settle it very early, preferably The Speaker: The advice I have is that Mr Bawden tonight, because we do not want this matter to hang on. has been telephoned but unfortunately his telephone is Several members have made this point. You have got to engaged. It is on ring back, but it would take some time weigh against that that there are at least two members who for him to come from Peel anyway. have a very close interest in how this debate progresses, It would do us no good to be seen to be denying them an Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker. opportunity to marshal their thoughts, if not the facts to put before us. The Speaker: Speaking to the adjournment now. Therefore I think, Sir Miles, the hon. member for Rushen is right to propose an adjournment. Ifwe vote on Mr Brown: If the two members named in the motion that proposal we will in effect be settling the issue between are concerned about the situation, I do not believe the these two propositions. Ifwe support the adjournment we House has any option but to adjourn this matter. However, will in effect be accommodating the wishes of Mr Gilbey Mr Speaker, I do not agree that the matter should be and Mrs Hannan. We will return to it at another time. The adjourned for a week. This issue is now in the public forum. trade off will be that we are not going to be able to settle It is not of my making, but of some members'aking, this as quickly as we would wish. Let us vote on the and it is here. The member exercised his right to put a adjournment, which will clear the air. Once we have done motion before the House, and the House supported that as that, we will now where we can go from here. I do not the last business of the day, knowing the agenda was pretty think we need too many emotive contributions. I think this full. is a matter that needs to be dealt with fairly clinically. If The House has agreed that we should proceed with the we can deal with Sir Miles'otion for an adjournment, I issue. We now have a situation which we all find, I suspect, think we will be able to see where we are going. difficult and sad, as the whole thing has become a conflict. Two out of four members of this House who are on a The Speaker: Hon. member, Mr Shimmin, Douglas Tynwald Management Committee - not a committee of West. this House but a Tynwald Management Committee - who represent the the House I should say, who are put down on Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My decision a motion that there should be a vote of no confidence in making on this will be quite simple. If either of the two them. This issue needs to be dealt with as quickly as members who have been identified in this motion wish an possible and I would move: adjournment, I will support them, It does not have to be both. Ifeither of the hon. members believes an adjournment That, under standing order 7(1)(b), the House would benefit his or her position, that is the only correct adjourn to 2.30 pm on Wednesday 24th January 2001 to way forward. If both of them were to make the decision consider the motion tabled under standing order 37(4) by they would prefer to resolve it today, I would go with those the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood. wishes - but it would have to be both. Either one wanting an adjournment is enough for me. The Speaker: Hon. members, I now have one motion before the House for adjournment and an amendment. Mrs The Speaker: Mr Rimington. Crowe.

Tynwald Management Committee —Consideration of Motion Adjourned HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K293

Mrs Crowe: I beg to second the amendment brought Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the forward by the hon. member for Castletown, Mr Brown. adjournment, I cannot believe my ears here this evening, This matter is in the public domain and has affected many Mr Speaker, at the indecisiveness expressed by certain people who have been named by the media. I do feel it members. It was at 2.30 this afternoon that the House should be dealt with as swiftly as possible, but I also feel expressed the desire to debate the issue and regard it as its that the two members who have been asked to leave the last business. Further, the House denied to approve a management committee should be able to give us as suggestion made by the hon. mover, my colleague, Mr explanation. I am at a loss to understand why the whole Braidwood, that we take the item first after questions next committee is not involved. They should be given every week. So the vote was taken to stay here this evening, opportunity to take whatever legal advice they may wish debate the issue and get on with it. (A Member: Hear, to, in case of any litigation that may well follow from the hear.) There was no mention at that time about the question behaviour of this House. in respect of the hon. clerk on who would serve us, no mention about that at all. The Speaker: Mr Rodan. I do not believe, sir, that discussing this is washing our dirty linen in public. We are elected as public Mr Rodan: Mr Speaker, I am a little concerned as to representatives to speak in a public arena. I would support the reason given by the hon. member for Glenfaba, which the adjournment if the two members so named in the prompted a debate to adjourn. That reason, ifI understand resolution felt so offended that taking the item tonight correctly is that even, in his words, 'common criminals would seriously lead them to believe that what we were would be allowed legal representation'. The reason for the doing was undemocratic. I will go along with that dissatisfaction was that Professor Bates continued in adjournment, provided that we take the item first after position tonight here as clerk to the House. It was suggested questions next week (A Member: Hear, hear.) and that that he was incapable, because of partiality, of giving advice we will not find a situation as we found today, where to the hon. member for Glenfaba and the hon. member for filibustering has gone on in my view (AMember: Hear, Peel - that would be as impartial as that given to other hear.) to bring us to this late hour. I hope that members member of the House. will get on and vote one way or the other, either for the It is not a question of the clerk to the House of Keys adjournment or for the amendment for that to recommence being in a position of tendering legal advice to one side or at 2.30 tomorrow. the other. I am quite confident he would be completely Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to move a further impartial in tendering advice to all members of the House amendment, so we will have three things to consider and vote on here this evening. It is not a question of legal representation before we get on with it. I would like to move a in a particular argument, but the tendering of procedural further amendment that the item be considered first after in the House advice. I am quite confident that the advice would be questions of Keys next week. I am impartial to every member of this House. putting that back in the arena again because I believe that that was the original intention: to save time The perception that it is not going to be impartial has and to prevent government business from prompted the calls for a substitute, a deputy secretary to mounting up and being back logged. That was a the House to occupy the clerk's chair, and the inability for good move. I am putting it back to members again and am giving them another that to happen has prompted dissatisfaction as to whether opportunity to go for a sensible move, which is that we there will be fairness this evening, which has lead to the consider this first after questions next call for an adjournment. week. I so move, Mr Speaker. I thought we had that argument this morning and the decision of the House this morning, or earlier this The Speaker: Mr Downie. afternoon, was that this debate, this discussion take place today. We have had the argument this afternoon whereby Mr Downie: Yes, Mr Speaker, I am brought to my feet the hon. members for Glenfaba and Peel expressed a wish because I feel that this House is rapidly becoming a that the discussion take place next week, but that argument laughing stock (Members: Hear, hear.) We have wasted was rejected. The decision was that it would take place three quarters of an hour debating whether we are going to tonight. Ifwe are reverting to their earlier arguments, that discuss this issue. As far as I am concerned, no-one has is something to consider afresh, but I do not believe that been accused, no-one is a criminal and nobody is in the there is case to adjourn on the basis of the partiality the of dock. What we fail to see is that people who are nominated secretary, in tendering procedural advice. Member: (A to represent the views of this House, despite two meetings Hear, hear.) I do not believe that that is a good reason to in private and 14 or 15 members being present, they still adjourn. do not get the message. (A Member: Hear, hear.) The Ifthe House considers that the earlier reasons to adjourn, message has come over loud and clear: we are not happy ones we did not accept earlier now stand, is today, that a with the outcome of their consultations or the way in which different matter, and with the benefit of reflection, it is the issue has been handled. I think that the majority of this perfectly to proper acknowledge that and to adhere to that, House want to retain the services of our secretary, Mr Speaker. Thank you. (Members: Hear, hear.) end of story. Nobody should be pilloried. Now you get on and get The Speaker: Mrs Cannell, East Douglas. the job you were asked to do. In this instance, I suggest

Tynwald Management Committee —Consideration of Motion Adjourned K294 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

that you are not there to make your own mind up on this those who signed this letter were for him and those who issue because it was brought to your attention quite clearly did not sign were perhaps against him. that the House was not satisfied with the decision. In fact, That is not my position. I would like to see the retention the House was annoyed that a recommendation was not of the Clerk of Tynwald. My view is very straightforward made to the House. The whole thing was cut and dried and on that, but, Mr Speaker, when we are elected to the House signed, sealed and delivered. of Keys, we accept, I believe, a very responsible position. However that is history and we are going to have to (A Member: Hear, hear.) We are elected to parliament live with that. What I want to try to do is to find a solution and this is a parliamentary issue, so it is no use seeking to where we can save face for everyone, but it is most avoid it in private. It is right that we meet in public in my important, to retain to the services and expertise of our view and I think that I have expressed that view before. secretary. The man has been good enough to give the But we do accept the serious responsibility, as this is a committee advice and to service the committee. He still serious issue. I believe when we are talking about people' services this House and, as far as I am concerned, we are careers that that is a serious issue. I believe when we are dealing with a man who is of impeccable character. talking about contractual issues of members of staff that (Members: Hear, hear.) I think that above all else, he that is also a serious issue. They are not issues that can be should be retained. satisfied by a vote in this House. They are issues that people I do not vote for carrying this thing on and letting it need to sit round the table and talk about and deeply fester. We should get the decision made tonight. If the consider. committee members feel that they cannot represent the best We are talking, Mr Speaker, about the responsibilities interests of the members, it is a very easy situation for of members - members of a standing committee, members them to stand down. Then we can all go home. of a committee that is a joint committee, I believe, between this House and the other place, a committee of Tynwald. The Speaker: Sorry. We are talking about responsibilities of that committee. We are talking about legal responsibilities as well as Mrs Crowe: Speaking to the amendment. political responsibilities.

The Speaker: Which amendment? Mrs Cannell: On a point of order sir, I thought the hon. member was speaking to the amendment to reconvene Mrs Crowe: The latest amendment. at 2.30 tomorrow.

The Speaker: It has not been seconded. Sir Miles Walker: I am, Mr Speaker, but I am not glossing over the issues. Mrs Crowe: To the previous amendment, Mr Speaker (Interj ections). It was clarification that I wanted. The Speaker: You only have five minutes, sir.

The Speaker: I am sorry, madam, it has not been Sir Miles Walker: I appreciate that and hope that I will seconded. It has? conclude my remarks within five minutes. Mr Speaker, we are talking about the legal and political responsibilities Mr Brown: Yes, it has. It was seconded. of members of this House sitting on a committee and we are talking about the legal and political responsibilities of The Speaker: You seconded it yourself, sorry. that committee. They are important issues. When we are (Laughter and interj ections) But she cannot, she has elected, we look after the rights of the majority of people. already spoken and seconded. Unless you want to second Their views are expressed, but it is also beholden on us to Mrs Cannell's? Then we know where we are. Does look after a minority and there is a minority of members anybody wish to second Mrs Cannell's amendment? Sir in this House - the two members named in this resolution Miles, you are speaking to what. You have already spoken, - who have expressed a view. I believe that it is beholden sii. on us, sir, to take note of that view. Mr Speaker, my own view is that I do not mind. The Sir Miles Walker: I have already spoken to the impartiality of the Secretary of this House is not in question resolution, sir, and it is now my intention to speak to the for me (AMember: Hear, hear.). It is not in question that amendment moved by my hon. colleague Mr Brown. he will advise us well, but there are two members who Mr Speaker, I think that the remarks of the hon. member, feel that their position is different. They are a minority Mr Downie, who has just resumed his seat, were and I think that we should respect their view. unfortunate. I say that because so far we have avoided the I want to get this matter over with sooner rather than situation of which side of the fence we are on. I would like later and that is why I will support the hon. member Mr to make my position absolutely clear. I am neither for the Castletown - (Interj ections and laughter). He is Mr Clerk of Tynwald nor against him. I do not believe that is Castletown! There was somebody sitting in your seat not what this debate is about. (Mr Brown: Hear, hear.) so long ago, Mr Speaker, who was Mr Castletown. I mean However, I do believe, sir, that many of the actions of the hon. member, Mr Brown, whose motion for members have led us into that position. (Members: Hear, adjournment til tomorrow I shall support. It is an important hear.) It was very clear from the report in the papers that matter and we should be getting on with it. We should let

Tynwald Management Committee —Consideration of Motion Adjourned HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001 K295

it fester another week, but we should not carry on tonight views of the two hon. members, the member for Glenfaba and disregard the views of the two people who are and the member for Peel. As the member for West Douglas mentioned in the resolution, sir. said, that makes the situation quite clear. If the two hon. members have concerns, then we should not proceed The Speaker: Chief Minister. tonight. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I do believe that we should proceed as soon as possible, however, because I Mr Gelling: Speaking to the adjournment, Mr Speaker. think that this matter is getting discussed ad infinitum I am horrified to think that we are in this position, which externally. I do not believe that that is a healthy situation. was shot upon us. We did not see the missile coming. I The sooner we can get on with the debate, the better. If think that what we are not seeing here is that I, too am one that happens to be tomorrow, that is what we should go of the members that the hon. mover of the motion has for. suggested not represented this House in the way that the majority would wish it to have been represented. Nobody The Speaker: Mr Bell, member for Ramsey. has said as yet what the committee has done wrong. What I am saying, Mr Speaker, is that, I must admit the Mr Bell: Very briefly, Mr Speaker, I like most other mover had already started when I came in just after lunch, members, want to get this hugely embarrassing matter (A but I fully understood that actually this was going to be Member: Hear, hear.) out of the way as quickly as possible taken at the end of the agenda. (AMember: Hear, hear.) for everyone, but more importantly for the good name of How was it that, as the presiding officer of this House, this hon. chamber, which I think is being dragged into a you allowed the other clerks to go when it was going to be farce and not just into disrepute, the way we are going at taken tonight? We knew that at half past two. Now I did the moment. not take it that way, but others, Sir Miles and all, happened However, ifit is the consensus view in this hon. chamber to take it that we were going to see to it tonight. that we are not prepared for a completion of this debate But just to give an instance, I went directly when we tonight, I urge hon. members to think very seriously about concluded upstairs to get all the information that I think is one other issue which we seem to have lost sight of going to be required for long hours of debate, Mr Speaker. completely, Mr Speaker. I refer to the wadge of legislation If members of this committee are going to be told they that we have got to take through. This is what we are here have done wrong, it has got to be proven that they have for. We should be spending our legislative time debating done wrong. I would then ask for some guidance, Mr this. We are running out of time, or we will be very shortly, Speaker. to get the massive and important Bills through which we Does this mean that members of that committee can are elected to pursue. Ifwe allow this to drift on until next distribute and speak of all the information they have within week we may lose, as the hon. member for Malew and that committee, or are they going then to be told that they Santon says, many hours of debate on this fruitless pursuit are actually encroaching on the privileges they have, being of the fox. members of that committee? You would think from the We are not getting any closer to a solution. If we lose way the debate is going that we had sacked the hon. another day's legislative time as well, not only will we Professor, the Secretary of this House. That is not the case. have lost further the reputation of this House, but we will Some members have this simplistic idea that it is so easy also have lost possibly several Bills which the public just to say 'click'nd everything can go back to normal, outside are expecting us to pass in their interest. So I urge but there are procedural problems as you well know, being hon. members to focus their minds on what we are actually the chairman of the committee. here for. Ifwe cannot get this thing finished tonight, then There are so many problems, Mr Speaker, I cannot see we should most certainly support the member for how tonight we could justifiably (AMember: Hear, hear.) Castletown and his resolution to get it out of the way come through this particular area with any satisfaction. I tomorrow afternoon. But please, do not let it drift over would like to move an amendment to the resolution as put into legislative time next week. forward by the hon. member and so on. I do not think that it is something that is going to be settled within half an The Speaker: Does anybody else wish to speak? There hour, because it is very complicated situation. It is only is before you an amendment. Do you wish to speak to it? right and proper that everyone can have available to them the information that they require, sir. Mr Brown: Just very briefly, Mr Speaker. Ijust would say to hon. members that there is a feeling from some The Speaker: Hon. member, I will answer one of your members that we should crack on because we made a questions. I, too, understood, even like the mover, that it decision earlier to do that, but I was the person who moved was to be the last item on the agenda. I put it to the House, that we complete the business today. I did that genuinely as you know, sir, and the House preferred to have it this because I believed that it was the right thing to do. The evening. With regard to the availability of papers for debate, two members named in this motion have expressed concern I will advise the members of the committee first thing that we are going to continue this evening under the present tomorrow morning. Mr Cretney. circumstances. I believe that if that is the case, we should respect their views. It is an issue that could affect any Mr Cretney: Yes, Mr Speaker, I voted for us to continue member of the House. I believe that we should come back tonight. Subsequently, we have come back and heard the to this House tomorrow at 2.30 to give members time to

Tynwald Management Committee —Consideration of Motion Adjourned K296 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd JANUARY 2001

readjust their diaries and to give us time to debate this issue properly. This is a very important issue and, quite honestly, Mr Speaker, it is important that the House retains its dignity when dealing with such an issue. Some people have determined to put this on the floor of the House, and it is now here. Let us deal with it professionally and properly.

The Speaker: Sir Miles Walker, do you wish to speak?

Sir Miles Walker: No, thank you, Mr Speaker, I think that all has been said.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the motion that the House stands adjourned. To that, there is the amendment that the House stands adjourned to 2.30 tomorrow afternoon. All those in favour of the amendment say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I therefore put this substantive motion that the House is adjourned until 2.30 tomorrow. Those in favour say aye; against, no. Thank you, hon. members, the House now stands adjourned until 2.30 tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.

Tynwald Management Committee —Consideration of Motion Adjourned