H O U S E O F K E Y S O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Y C H I A R E A S F E E D

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

HANSARD

Douglas, Tuesday, 3rd May 2016

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Supplementary material provided subsequent to a sitting is also published to the website as a Hansard Appendix. Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted on application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.

Volume 133, No. 18

ISSN 1742-2264

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2016 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

Present:

The Speaker (Hon. S C Rodan) (Garff); The Chief Minister (Hon. A R Bell) (Ramsey); Mr G G Boot (Glenfaba); Mr L I Singer (Ramsey); Hon. W E Teare (Ayre); Mr A L Cannan (Michael); Mr R K Harmer (Peel); Mr Z Hall and Mr D J Quirk (Onchan); Hon. R H Quayle (Middle); Mr J R Houghton and Mr G R Peake (Douglas North); Mrs K J Beecroft and Mr W M Malarkey (Douglas South); Mr C R Robertshaw and Mr J Joughin (Douglas East); Hon. J P Shimmin and Mr C C Thomas (Douglas West); Hon. R A Ronan (Castletown); Mr G D Cregeen (Malew and Santon); Hon. J P Watterson, Hon. L D Skelly and Hon. P A Gawne (Rushen); with Mr R I S Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald.

______1012 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

Business transacted

Leave of absence granted – Questions 1.1-1.5. and 1.10-1.20 held over till next sitting ...... 1015 1. Questions for Oral Answer...... 1015 1.6. TT World Series feasibility study 2014 – Publication ...... 1015 1.7. Local multiplier effect – Benefits to local businesses and Government ...... 1016 1.8. Planning enforcement officer – Role; cases in progress ...... 1021 1.21. Noble’s Hospital end of life care pathways – UK benchmarking report ...... 1024 2. Questions for Written Answer ...... 1027 2.1. Lord Lisvane Review of the Functioning of Tynwald – Written submissions and oral evidence ...... 1027 2.2. Media Development Fund and CinemaNX Ltd – Inter-party agreements; confidentiality provisions ...... 1027 2.3. Voting results in Tynwald since 2011 – Details of publication on website ...... 1028 Order of the Day ...... 1029 3. Motion to allow broadcasting of debate ...... 1029 Broadcasting of debate on public sector pensions – Permission of the House granted .... 1029 4. Motion on Public Sector Pensions ...... 1029 Medium-Term Financial Strategy and public sector pensions – Information from CoMin before considering changes – Motion carried ...... 1029 The House adjourned at 12.18 p.m...... 1051

______1013 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

PAGE LEFT DELIBERATELY BLANK

______1014 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

House of Keys

The House met at 10.00 a.m.

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

The Speaker: Moghrey mie, good morning, Hon. Members.

Members: Good morning, Mr Speaker. 5 The Speaker: The Chaplain will lead us in prayer.

PRAYERS The Chaplain of the House of Keys

Leave of absence granted – Questions 1.1-1.5. and 1.10-1.20 held over till next sitting

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have given leave of absence to the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, who is indisposed. As a consequence, his Questions will be held over till next week.

1. Questions for Oral Answer

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1.6. TT World Series feasibility study 2014 – Publication

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

If the Minister will publish the feasibility study into a TT World Series in 2014?

10 The Speaker: Therefore, we turn to Question 6 on the Order Paper. I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister for Economic Development if the Minister will publish the feasibility 15 study into the TT World Series in 2014?

The Speaker: I call the Minister for Economic Development, Mr Skelly.

______1015 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. A feasibility study into the TT World Series was produced in 2012 and was circulated to Hon. 20 Members in December 2015, together with the details of the changes that had taken place since that work was undertaken, and the TT World Series tender was subsequently undertaken. I would be happy to re-send that information to any Hon. Member if they ask me to do so. As Hon. Members are aware, the TT World Series tender was not progressed and a new tender exercise undertaken for the appointment of a TT Promoter. The recommended 25 appointment of Vision Nine as the TT Promoter was just approved in Tynwald last month. Gura mie eu.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Beecroft.

30 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for clarifying. Could he tell me if he has any plans to publish it somewhere on the web so that the public can actually read this, or do we need to rely on, for anybody who has questions about it, individual Members forwarding it on to them?

35 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Obviously, issuing it to Hon. Members, I am more than happy to publish that publicly. I think it would be very helpful for Members and the public to understand the background to where we 40 obviously arrived just last month in Tynwald.

1.7. Local multiplier effect – Benefits to local businesses and Government

The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Peake) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

What steps his Department has taken to promote the benefits of the local multiplier effect to local businesses and Government?

The Speaker: Question 7, Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Peake.

Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Economic Development, what steps his Department has 45 taken to promote the benefits of the local multiplier effect to local businesses and Government Departments?

The Speaker: I call on the Minister to reply, Mr Skelly.

50 The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Skelly): Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for raising this important issue. As Hon. Members may be aware, the local multiplier effect refers to the way in which buying goods locally drives growth through the local economy and consequently to Government income. For example, research cited in DEFA’s Food Strategy has shown that £1 spent in a local 55 business is worth £1.83 to the local economy, compared to 58 pence with a non-local business. The Department is keen to encourage the purchase of local products and services wherever possible, and supports many initiatives in this area. For example, the Department’s Financial Support and Town and Village Centre Regeneration Schemes require those undertaking building

______1016 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

work to use local Manx accredited tradesmen wherever possible. Another example is the 60 Department’s Taste scheme and Harvest awards, which also support local produce. In addition, the Department works closely with DEFA to build awareness of the local multiplier effect, particularly in relation to the food and drink sector. DEFA’s Food Matters Strategy recognises the multiplier effect and therefore promotes local sales and import substitution as a means of delivering benefits to the local economy. The Department fully 65 supports this strategy in seeking to grow the economic contribution from this sector and is assisting DEFA on multiple initiatives designed to promote the use of local businesses and clustering to improve performance. In particular, the Department is making available to food and drink production businesses a range of support, such as help to introduce quality standards, marketing and websites for online 70 trading. The Department has worked with the Cabinet Office to highlight to all Departments the potential value of buying from local businesses both for the local economy and the associated Government income. At the same time, there are requirements upon Government to maintain open, transparent 75 and fair procurement processes to ensure best value for the taxpayer. I am pleased to say that I am informed that local suppliers win the large majority of Government contracts.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Peake.

80 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So can the Minister then acknowledge that the local multiplier effect is of benefit; but can he actually name the benefits, please, to the economy?

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 85 The Minister: I think the benefits go far and wide. I do not actually have a list of specific benefits, but what we do need to agree upon here is that every pound spent therefore is circulated around the local economy. As indicated there, of course, working very closely with the Hon. Member’s own Department, DEFA, £1.83 is distributed around the local economy. 90 Food and drink clearly, I think, are one of the most important aspects to that, but it does go much further. We highlighted the construction industry, which is very vital in the process of supporting the economy, and one of the best barometers, I think, to the local economy. So, it does need to ring true right the way through Government in terms of the support that we give to local businesses and local products as well. 95 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Quirk.

Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I can – 100 The Speaker: Mr Quirk – Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk, supplementary question.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister who is answering the Question, with regard to the suppliers – and he 105 mentions the construction industry and that is welcome – could I ask the Minister, what discussions does his Department have with Treasury regarding when contracts are issued for major projects on the Island, that those contracts are actually specified that local merchants should be used instead of actually using off-Island contractors as a direct supply? Would that be of benefit to the local economy too, because if merchants do not exist on the Island and 110 companies are buying directly in the UK, do we not lose out?

______1017 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

The Speaker: Mr Skelly to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu. I think the Hon. Member raises a good point there in the construction industry. Clearly, there 115 is the MACC system, which was highlighted in the original Answer, and it is worth highlighting how that system actually works. That is that if there is a Government contract to be obtained, it is not openly advertised in the public domain. It is actually advertised through the MACC Scheme to ensure that local suppliers get the first opportunity. The Hon. Member raises the point about merchants, which is obviously a subsection of the 120 construction industry. I would need to verify that with Treasury as to how that sits within the procurement to understand if subcontracts are also found on the Island. But it is a matter I think we can raise Treasury to investigate that further, to ensure that that spend goes all around the Island.

125 The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Peake.

Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I could just help the Minister, the benefits to the Isle of Man and to Government will be the extra VAT, Income Tax, ITIP and National Insurance payments that would all benefit from money 130 going around the economy. This is not a new concept. The local multiplier effect was first coined by John Maynard Keynes in 1936 in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. There are benefits. I think it is quite disappointing that there is a lot of money being spent by the Department in –

135 The Speaker: Question please, Mr Peake.

Mr Peake: Absolutely! (Laughter) We have got plenty of time today. (Laughter)

The Speaker: That depends on the following issues, Mr Peake! 140 Mr Peake: We are looking at the work that has been done on the Food Strategy with DED and DEFA, and we have four local breweries here on the Isle of Man – Okell’s, Bushy’s, Hooded Ram, and (Interjection) the Doghouse Brewery in Jurby. Is the Minister aware that the Villa Marina does not sell any of those beers? How does that fit with the money we are paying into the Food 145 Strategy? I would like the Minister to answer that please.

The Speaker: The Minister to reply.

150 The Minister: Gura mie eu. First of all, I thank the Hon. Member for highlighting exactly how that benefits the local economy and Government in particular, of course, in taxes through various formats. VAT, I think we need to fully recognise the value that is to our economy. The point he raises with regard to breweries, there is of course … He highlighted four 155 successful breweries on the Isle of Man and certainly a big fan of them – all, I have to say. (Laughter) I am sure many other Members are too, as we all like to try and support. He raised the point there about the Villa not serving local brewery … That I would find disturbing, to be quite frank, and it is a matter I think we would need to address, because if we are to do as we say, we need to ensure that we as Government actually have that opportunity to buy local 160 produce.

______1018 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

I know, with regard to when we walk into local food outlets, I am, like many Members, very frustrated that you cannot find Manx produce on the shelves. Even if it is a bit more expensive, I would be happy to have the option. So taking up the Member’s point there with regard to ale available in Government premises 165 under DED’s remit, the Villa, we will investigate that and if we are not serving it, we will ensure that we will be serving it in future.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

170 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister’s replies and the questioner’s questions are very helpful in understanding the social and economic value of procurement. Can the Minister agree with me that it would be very helpful for the next administration to actually revisit procurement law regulations, so that we can be more helpful to Departments 175 when they are procuring? And secondly, who is actually politically responsible for procurement now? I believe that function is in the Attorney General's Chambers. Is it Treasury though still that is responsible for procurement?

180 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu. I appreciate the Hon. Member’s question. It follows on from Mr Quirk’s question regarding procurement to ensure that full opportunity is there for local suppliers. 185 As far as I understand it, this still rests with Treasury. The whole purpose of that of course is to give a certain independence, so as Departments do not have an over-reliance. (Interjection and laughter) The Treasury is there not only to get best value, but the Treasury also recognise the multiplier effect, which was highlighted in the original Answer. 190 So we will be … It is a holding in Treasury from a political statement and do we need to review the procurement? I am sure we do need to review that from time to time and we will take up the point with Treasury.

The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Quirk. 195 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I just ask the Minister then, it has been custom and practice over a number of years on the Island that if a product was slightly dearer at local level compared to coming in from the UK, the local supplier would still be used. Is that still the common practice used by the Government? 200 The Speaker: Mr Skelly to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu. I think it is a question to be answered obviously by Treasury and Procurement. 205 As far as I am aware yes, there is still some leeway with regard to the expense. If you take that multiplier effect, it really does need to be reviewed very tightly, because £1 spent equals £1.83 in the local economy; whereas it is 58p if it is bought from an off-Island supplier. So it is quite a big differential, and it is something we do need to consider very carefully. I would highlight too, from Economic Development’s point of view, that one of the reasons 210 we are trying to support tourism so much is because money from tourism is imported revenue that gets spread around the local economy, particularly the hospitality industry and retail industry, which would greatly appreciate that.

______1019 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Peake.

215 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a bigger issues than just one single issue, and it is more than breweries. I was just really highlighting that point. The hon. gentleman for West Douglas: it is very true, it is the procurement process. I really would like the Minister to let this House know how his Department is helping to have businesses understand this and Government Departments understand this. 220 Clear direction is what is needed for the benefits of that. We have seen in the past about shopping local, that is a great message – it is getting that understanding behind it. We all benefit from that, so I would like to know when the Minister will actually get that into practice.

The Speaker: Reply, sir. 225 The Minister: Gura mie eu. I think this a cross-Government responsibility. We of course can actually support it. We have a number of different schemes that support businesses and we have helped a number of businesses, as we do on-going: everything from the Creamery all the way to breweries, and as 230 well, I think there is a local whiskey distillery going to be opening in the near future, which the Department has supported previously. This is all about adding to the offering. In many cases, food and drink really help the night- time economy, which I know the Chief Minister has talked about very heavily, as to how we are suffering in that particular area. It is something we do need to increase our offering. So, food 235 and produce is something we do need to be aware of. I do not know if all Members do this, but the first thing you do when you sit down in a restaurant, you ask ‘Is that Manx produce that we are going to be consuming?’ That is what you do need to ask the question about. It is not all about price; this is actually about a benefit in the local economy. 240 So we all do need to take a responsibility, and we have a host of different events at which we actually support local produce.

The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Thomas.

245 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Procurement is about goods and services. It is also about capital items, as we have been considering recently in Infrastructure. Can the Minister arrange for a statement to be made about where Procurement is located and who is determining procurement policy, and also where the Capital Projects Unit is now located? I believe there have been quite substantial 250 organisational changes in the last six months, and I think it would be helpful for the general public and for this House and the other place to have a statement of the situation.

The Speaker: Mr Skelly.

255 The Minister: Gura mie eu. Yes, clarity on the procurement policy – there appears to be some confusion. Clearly, that rests with Treasury. I believe other Departments have contributed to that. I will take that up with the Minister for Treasury to see if we can clarify.

______1020 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

1.8. Planning enforcement officer – Role; cases in progress

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Quirk) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

What the role is of a planning enforcement officer; and how many enforcement cases are in progress?

260 The Speaker: Question 8, Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, what is the role of a planning enforcement officer; and how many enforcement cases are there in progress? 265 The Speaker: I call the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, Mr Ronan.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Ronan): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The planning enforcement officers investigate allegations of breaches of planning control. 270 They first seek to establish whether the complaint constitutes development, and whether it is a breach of planning. If there is a breach, the Department needs to consider whether the breach is causing harm and what level of action is appropriate. If a breach is found, it is common to allow for a retrospective planning permission to be submitted to regularise the development, albeit that 275 formal action may end up being necessary, should the matter not otherwise be resolved. The purpose of enforcement is to ensure development complies with policy and does not result in material harm. The objective of the enforcement function is compliance and not punishment, Mr Speaker. Yearly, we receive between 240 and 300 enquiries. As at 20th April this year, there were 151 280 open planning enforcement cases. Thank you.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mr Quirk.

285 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister what sort of policies come from your Department to planning enforcement to reconcile some of these issues, which are, I am led to believe, sometimes three and four years on the books for a retrospective application to be progressed? Can I ask the Minister what is he doing to progress those 151 cases, which may be two and three years old? 290 The Speaker: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is clear that sometimes planning enforcement can take quite a considerable time to 295 resolve. I certainly know Mr Quirk has had an involvement in this over the years and is concerned at the length of time some of the enforcement cases take. As I say, Mr Speaker, these are not normally straight forward. What I will say is that recently we, in the Department, have been putting a spotlight on enforcement to see if there are ways of speeding up and streamlining the process to get enforcement cases moved more quickly 300 through the Department.

______1021 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

Thank you.

The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Quirk.

305 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister regarding the powers of an enforcement officer; do the powers given to the enforcement officer by your Department give that person a right to walk on to land, unannounced?

310 The Speaker: Reply, sir.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am unsure, Mr Speaker, whether the policies give the right for an officer to walk on to land. I can certainly let the Hon. Member know what the policy is on that. 315 Thank you.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 320 Just regarding the planning enforcement, would the Minister not consider if conditions are in breach of an application which is being considered by the Committee and/or by an inspector – conditions are negotiated through the proper manner – enforcement issues regarding conditions should take a priority? Does the Minister not agree with that?

325 The Speaker: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it depends on the individual case. If a case has been going on for, certainly more than a year – and as the Hon. Member knows, some of these cases can take many years to resolve, 330 given the complexities of each individual case … Certainly, in regards to a case that has been going, say, for under a year; the Department has the powers to issue stop notices; anything after that it does not. But at the end of the day, what we want to do is to work with the applicants, or the people who have cases of enforcement against them, to try and resolve in the best possible manner. 335 A Member: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Further supplementary, Mr Malarkey.

340 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister tell me how many enforcement officers he has? It is quite obvious that there is quite a backlog. Would the Minister not consider that giving more powers to Douglas Town Council and Douglas Corporation, who have their own building inspectors, could actually ease the load on his 345 Department and allow them to deal with planning issues around the Douglas area, as one third of the population of the Isle of Man does live in Douglas, and they do have their own officers to deal with these situations?

Mr Quirk: Or take them over. 350 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

______1022 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Certainly, even as my time as Planning Chairman, Mr Speaker, I wanted to engage certainly 355 with Douglas Corporation and other local authorities to see if there are any ways they can work with Planning and even if they worked together with other local authorities to see how they could possibly take functions. Those are still discussions which are ongoing, Mr Speaker. I would not rule anything out at the moment, but I think what is important is what is right for the planning process in the Isle of Man, its economy, jobs etc. 360 It is easy for you to say that Douglas has a third of the population, but it is the structure in and around that which would make the Isle of Man’s economy and Douglas work better. In regard to the officers the enforcement team have; we have one full-time officer on enforcement, but what we have if there are specific cases where there is more demand in that area, then other officers with the necessary qualifications can drop off and work with the full- 365 time officer as well, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 370 Is the Minister aware that the stop notices are rather a toothless animal? (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) On one case I dealt with earlier, there was a request to the developer to stop, and if they wanted to do anything further they would have to go through the Attorney General’s Chambers, which they were reluctant to do.

375 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: What I will say, Mr Speaker, I do not agree with that at all. Coming from my previous life I can say that is absolutely not the case. The stop notices actually do work. They do work. Perhaps you are talking about a specific one instance, but I can tell you in general they do 380 work. But as I say, I think what is important is that the planning team and Government as a whole work with applicants, work with the building industry, if mistakes have been made, to try and resolve them in the best possible manner.

385 The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the high level review of planning at the minute should consider enforcement policy and application (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) as an important issue? 390 More specifically, does the Minister believe – and if he cannot answer today, perhaps he could circulate information – that retrospective applications can often be used to avoid enforcement action? Secondly, can the Minister provide any information about any demolitions that have taken place to ensure compliance, given unauthorised development? 395 Finally, when was the enforcement policy actually last revisited and does the Minister agree with me that it should actually be revisited soon?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

400 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Four questions there. The high level review should review enforcement: I think the high level review is a general broad brush across planning, planning policy etc. and enforcement, of course, should be considered within that.

______1023 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

Retrospective applications, there can be a delay; I think what is important is, as I have said – I 405 think this is the third or fourth time I have said it now – the Department works with applicants and the construction industry to try and resolve this. I think it would not be in the benefit to come in with a heavy hand to try and stop every application that is suffering with an enforcement case at the moment. Demolition: I do not have the details on that, but I think I can certainly get you that. What I 410 can say, and it is certainly what the officers gave Mr Thomas, yourself and Mr Joughin at the Jenkins review recently, Mr Speaker, was that the stats, which are interesting – I think the House might need to hear this really: yearly, the Department receive about, as I say, between 250 and 300 enquiries in regard to enforcement. Approximately 25 breaches are resolved; approximately 30% to 40% of cases there was no breach; 20% of cases are not in the public interest to pursue; 415 between 15% and 25% receive retrospective planning approval; and 7% of cases result in the service of an enforcement notice.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Quirk.

420 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify to the Minister, regarding stop notices and retrospective applications, as the Minister of the Department, what time would he give to a stop notice and what time would he give to retrospective application to be concluded?

425 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: I think that is difficult to answer, Mr Speaker. It depends on the complexities of the case, which the Member will know having dealt with cases in his own constituency. (Interjection by Mr Quirk) It really does depend on the case, the length of time that applicant has 430 perhaps had a business, so it is very difficult to pinpoint one sort of individual time, Mr Speaker. Just something else which I did not answer before in regard to Mr Thomas and the review, should our Department be having a review? What I can say is that we have revisited the enforcement procedures, and as I mentioned before, we are looking at it to see ways of possibly streamlining and making the service better for the public.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

1.21. Noble’s Hospital end of life care pathways – UK benchmarking report

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care:

Pursuant to Written Answer 11 on 10th November 2015, whether the UK benchmarking report is now available and how the Island compared with UK hospitals? 435 The Speaker: Turning to Question 21, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister for Health and Social Care, pursuant to his Written Answer 11 on 440 10th November 2015, whether the UK benchmarking report is now available and how the Island compared with UK hospitals?

______1024 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

The Speaker: The Minister for Health and Social Care, Mr Quayle.

445 The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The UK benchmarking report, End of Life Care Audit: Dying in Hospital, is now available online and I am happy to provide the hyperlink to those Members who require it. The Department contributed information to this audit in May 2015, and comparisons with other UK hospitals is seen in the body of the Report. A summary of the Report was submitted to 450 the Department’s Cancer Project Board on 7th April this year and to the Council of Cancer Charities on 13th April. Both groups were pleased with the results of the audit, in that many areas compare well with their UK counterparts and some areas are better than UK hospitals. Hospice Isle of Man will be attending the Noble’s Hospital Patient Safety Forum meeting to present the national audit results on 5th May 2016. There are some areas to work on, and those 455 are highlighted in the recommendations section. On the whole however, Mr Speaker, end of life care is well managed in Noble’s Hospital. The audit showed that Noble’s Hospital has made improvements to ensure better care for dying people and better support for their families, carers, friends and those important to them. The results for the Isle of Man were, in the most part, better than the national average. 460 However, we should not be complacent, Mr Speaker, and should aim for continuous improvement to ensure high quality of end of life care for all who need it.

The Speaker: Supplementary question, Mrs Beecroft.

465 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and encouraging response about what is going on in this area. He did mention that there were areas that needed some work on that were highlighted in the Report. I wonder if he could clarify which areas and what the timescale and how urgent he is giving the attention to those areas that need some work on them. 470 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is fair to say that one of the areas was specialist palliative care. It is only offered at 475 Noble’s Hospital between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Monday to Friday, whereas 37% of hospitals in England offer 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Sunday, so that is an area where we can improve, but, sadly, it boils down to pounds, shillings and pence. We would have to employ a full-time person to cover this post and at the moment my budget is stretched to breaking and trying to find … It is back to that … 480 I totally can relate to the Hon. Member for Douglas South wanting to improve the service. I think we have significantly improved the service, and I think the Hon. Member will be pleased with the report. However, it is finding the money to do all the extras that would make it 100% better than anywhere in the UK. And that, I am afraid, at this moment in time I have not got, Mr Speaker. 485 The Speaker: Further supplementary, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could the Minister confirm then that all the areas that do need work on them, do they all 490 require an amount of budget to allow that to happen, or are there areas that can just be improved by better practice rather than actually needing more money?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

______1025 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

495 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that those two points; yes, there is better record keeping, and some of it will be financial. So if I can give my hon. colleague the five clinical audit indicators, just to show how we compare and where we can improve. The first one, in 78% of Noble’s Hospital patients’ records viewed documented evidence that 500 was recorded showed that the patient would most likely die in the coming hours or days, this compares to the UK national average result of 83%, so there is an obviously an area where we can improve our record keeping, Mr Speaker. Number two, there was documented evidence that discussions had taken place between the health care professional and a nominated person or persons important to the patient regarding 505 the likelihood that the patient would probably die in the coming hours or days, imminent death. This was shown in 78% of Noble’s Hospital cases, compared with 79% nationally. However, if we then look at all records, 100% in Noble’s Hospital had documented evidence that patients were given an opportunity to have concerns listened to compared with the UK national results of 84%. So there are areas where we can improve our record keeping, Mr Speaker, where hopefully 510 there would not be a big financial outlay, but other areas we will need to spend.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, that brings us to the end of Questions for Oral Answer. There are three questions for Written Answer and the replies will be distributed in the normal manner.

______1026 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

2. Questions for Written Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

2.1. Lord Lisvane Review of the Functioning of Tynwald – Written submissions and oral evidence

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Chief Minister:

What the format, destination and deadline for written submissions to Lord Lisvane’s Inquiry into the Functioning of the Branches of Tynwald is; and when and how Lord Lisvane will hear oral evidence in public?

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): The arrangements for the holding of the Review of the 515 Functioning of Tynwald are a matter for Lord Lisvane. I am informed, however, that written submissions are to be received by the Secretary to the Review, Michelle Norman, by Thursday, 2nd June. There is no stipulation as to their format. As to the hearing of oral evidence in public, Lord Lisvane will be sitting during the weeks commencing 16th and 30th May in the Legislative Council Chamber. Any person wishing to give 520 oral evidence should contact the Secretary. I am informed that letters indicating the above have been sent by the Secretary to all Members of Tynwald as well as a press release being provided to the media. Any queries concerning the Review should be directed to the Secretary c/o the Attorney General’s Chambers.

TREASURY

2.2. Media Development Fund and CinemaNX Ltd – Inter-party agreements; confidentiality provisions

The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Pursuant to Written Answers 28 and 29 on 17th November, what other parties would be included in the inter-party agreements; and why there would be confidentiality provisions?

525 The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Inter-party agreements by their nature consolidate and rationalise the positions, interests, liabilities and priorities of all the main parties to a transaction in order that all the main deal points of each party which might conflict are recorded and managed in one central document creating a contractual nexus where one might not otherwise exist. 530 These consolidation documents contain commercial confidentiality clauses for many reasons, not least because they contain heavily negotiated terms of trade and also record details, many of which are market sensitive, which if made public, may undermine the ongoing commercial interests of the parties and the project itself.

______1027 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

TYNWALD MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

2.3. Voting results in Tynwald since 2011 – Details of publication on website

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee:

In what form Tynwald, Legislative Council and House of Keys voting results broken down by Member will be published on the Tynwald website; and when this data is expected to be made public?

535 The Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee (Mr Speaker): The agreed motion was as follows:

That the voting results in Tynwald since the 2011 General Election be published on the Tynwald website, broken down by Member, before June 2016.

The resolution does not cover the Legislative Council or the House of Keys. By 30th June 2016, the voting results for Tynwald will be provided online via www.tynwald.org.im detailing the Member’s name, the vote cast (aye or no), and the Tynwald 540 sitting the vote was held at. A basic search for the Member’s name and the sitting date will be available.

______1028 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

Order of the Day

3. MOTION TO ALLOW BROADCASTING OF DEBATE

Broadcasting of debate on public sector pensions – Permission of the House granted

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to move:

That notwithstanding any previous Resolution or usual practice of the House, the normal rules relating to broadcasting of House proceedings be suspended to permit radio transmission of the debate on the provision of more information supporting the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, in relation to public sector pensions.

The Speaker: We turn to Item 3 on the Order Paper, motion to allow broadcasting of debate. I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas. 545 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon. Members, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, that we allow Manx Radio to broadcast our proceedings. I would be very surprised if any Member has any reasons against, but look forward to hearing 550 any. Obviously some people out there will be disappointed at the rate that the music will go off, John Moss will be disappointed that he has to put away his cup of coffee, but let’s turn up the wick and let’s broadcast these proceedings.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson. 555 Mr Watterson: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I put the motion to the vote. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 560 I will give Manx Radio a moment to get organised. (Laughter) (Interjection by Mr Watterson)

4. MOTION ON PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS

Medium-Term Financial Strategy and public sector pensions – Information from CoMin before considering changes – Motion carried

The Hon. Member for Douglas East (Mr Robertshaw) to move:

That this House requests the Council of Ministers to provide it with more information supporting the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, before changes to the public sector pensions schemes are considered in Tynwald.

The Speaker: Item 4, the motion on public sector pensions. I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw, to move.

______1029 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

565 Mr Watterson: Does this mean we get the short version?

Mr Robertshaw: You wish! Thank you, Mr Speaker. A few weeks ago in another place the Council of Ministers decided to postpone a motion 570 concerning the proposed changes to the Government Unified Pension Scheme. The Chief Minister subsequently explained that this was done in order to give more time for further deliberations on the proposals and to allow for more information to be made available. The motion before us today is a direct response to that offer from the Chief Minister to provide more information and is in effect the first formal parliamentary opportunity available to 575 Members to lay out their requests for such information. I am pleased that Hon. Members have decided to support the Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas’s motion, to have this Keys debate broadcast. The Public Sector Pension Scheme (GUS) is an unfunded provision, the majority of the cost of which falls on the taxpayer. It could be said that the taxpayer has been represented by an empty 580 chair in all the private negotiations between the employer and the employees, so it is only right that the main funder should now also be as well informed as possible. The point should also be made that these negotiations have taken little account of the Government’s continuing capacity, or otherwise, to fund the services it provides to the general public. Nor did they indeed fact in the potential impact of macro-economic events as they may 585 affect the Isle of Man in the future. We all know what happened the last time Government became deeply embroiled in intense negotiations on public sector pensions with the unions during the formation of GUS, which took place to the exclusion of all else – as it were, in a bubble. Events outside of the negotiations, and indeed outside of the control of Government, were to have serious and detrimental impact. In 590 the original actuarial assessments, it was assumed wages and salaries would rise significantly; they did not. It was assumed that Government would continue to increase in size; it did not, it shrank. It was assumed that staff might wish to work longer; generally, they did not. It was forecast that the fund would last long enough to act as a stabiliser; it has not, it has run out. It will run out during the next administration. 595 In summary then, rightly there was a concentration on the technical details of the formation of GUS and the interests of the unions and of the Government staff, quite rightly. But wrongly, it was assumed that all this would come about in a steady-state, benign environment for Government. The latter, of course, did not happen and the rest, as they say, is history. This time around, for our part as Members, it cannot be said that we have not been provided, 600 yet again, with an enormous amount of technical information, and for that I am grateful to the PSPA, various actuaries and the Council of Ministers for putting so much effort into that provision. However, I believe we are in danger of repeating history, in that we yet again appear to be trying to resolve the public sector pensions issue within its own bubble, without due regard for either the potential impact on Government’s many other responsibilities and services 605 or the potential effect of yet unseen macro-economic events. That, at least, was the clear impression I gained from the two major presentations recently made to Hon. Members, and I am sure I cannot be alone in that assessment. So, great emphasis and detail has been provided in connection with the latest negotiated proposals, but next to nothing about the potential impact of the legacy cost on the provision of 610 future Government services as the full annual burden of the pensions out-go hits the annual revenue account ever harder. The only way we can rectify this lack of knowledge needed to help us find the balance between sustainable public sector pensions and sustainable Government services is to develop a model, using as its baseline the currently limited outline information provided by the Treasury 615 Minister in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS).

______1030 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

With that in mind, consider the contents of section 4 of this year’s budgetary Pink Book on pages 8 to 14, which deals with the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, and try to reconcile those concerns with the two major presentations Hon. Members have been provided with on public sector pensions. I would argue that such a comparison raises many more questions than it 620 actually answers. Turning first to the concept of smaller Government, on page 11 of the Pink Book, and here I quote:

This plan assumes that Government will be smaller and the number of staff employed by the public sector in 2021-22 will be significantly lower than it is now.

I raised this point on more than one occasion during the presentations, only to have the questions brushed aside by the Minister of Policy and Reform. As I recall, and I am not quite sure 625 I am correct here, I was advised by him that this was not a matter for the Actuary or the PSPA. Well, of course it is! I was so dumbfounded by his answer that I then asked the question, is smaller, smarter Government just a fairy story then? I really am beginning to wonder. Mr Speaker, I would say this to the Minister: you bet the level of staff reductions matter in 630 any pensions forecast and if it has not been factored in – and my clear understanding is that it has not – then the projections used in the presentations and therefore those shown in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy will be wrong from the outset. Turning next to the concept of smarter Government, as detailed on page 12, where it refers to the need to embrace new technology as vital – and here again, I quote:

It will allow Government to … automate and streamline our administrative functions.

635 This is one of the areas where Government must slim down, and as ‘smarter’ here by definition informs ‘smaller’ and as I have said, ‘smaller’ informs the pension forecast, then this too should have been factored in. But we know from what we have been told that it has not. Turning to the last section of page 14 for a moment, which identifies what Treasury considers are the main risks, I have to say I think this is a fair assessment, but am left asking the question, 640 why then do the rudimentary outlines of the forecast lean so far to the optimistic end of the scale, both on the revenue side and the control of costs side? Surely it is only prudent when forecasting to aim somewhere between the worst and best-case scenarios. I would argue that the MTFS anticipated expenditure savings are way up there towards the best-case scenario end of the scale, and this must be unwise. 645 On the revenue side, it also suggests a steady-state, benign environment. Is it wise to assume that? Should we not be ‘once bitten, twice shy’, surely? What I really struggled with though, in the forecast, was trying to establish what levels of available revenue were left once the increasing public sector pensions outflow had taken such a big chunk out of it. How will we cope, for example, with a significant and ever-growing demand 650 in both healthcare and additional costs associated with elderly care? And again, we have had a Question this morning, between an Hon. Member and the Minister for Health and Social Care, who continues to do his best to answer these serious and important questions, but keeps pointing back now to budget issues. Despite the contingency section on page 12, I simply could not reconcile these anticipated 655 increases in demand with the statement on page 11, which states and here I quote:

it should be made clear that all areas of Government are expected to contribute to reducing costs, no lines of expenditure … are ring fenced.

At the moment, we only have the most rudimentary of outlines in the medium-term financial forecast available to us – nothing more and it is simply not enough. We are much nearer to the reality of the situation with the following words, which are drawn from page 11 of the forecasts, and I would argue that these really are significant, and again I quote:

______1031 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

The decisions required as to where reductions should be made will need to be considered by the succeeding administration.

660 So there you have it in a nutshell. Let me paraphrase: ‘what we really want you to commit to now, or at least what we want you to believe now, is that the huge legacy pension cost is affordable – even though we accept that it will be up to the new administration to find a way to make it so.’ In other words, an act of faith, based on flimsy evidence. Mr Speaker, I do not know what you think about the phrase, but ‘hostage to fortune’ comes 665 to mind. Returning specifically then to the wording in the motion before us, in all honesty, I really do not think I have to tell the Council of Ministers what information Hon. Members need to help us – all of us; backbenchers and Ministers alike – how to best deal with the intractable problems of the public sector pension legacy cost, as the Medium-Term Financial Strategy recognises the 670 absolute core of the issue and what must be done, when it says on page 11, and again I quote:

The achievement of these savings reductions will require Government to think differently at both political and officer levels.

I will repeat those words, because they are absolutely essential: ‘the achievement of these savings reductions will require Government to think differently at both political and officer levels.’ I think the second quote is equally crucial, where it says on page 13:

There is more work required to be carried out, including improving the sophistication of our modelling.

Quite frankly, our current lack of socio-economic modelling capability is an embarrassment 675 and must be addressed as a matter of real urgency. Then again, I have been calling for this for the past two and a half years. I totally agree with those two incredibly important statements in the Strategy, but are they just going to end up more words on paper, and no actions? What we must do is stop saying and actually start doing. 680 This then is not some sort of ‘backbenchers versus the Council of Ministers’ exchange. We all know it is far too serious for that. What we must not do is pretend, as appears to be the case from the presentations, that by using the briefest of outline forecasts, we can now move ahead, confident in the knowledge that we have overcome the challenge of the legacy pension costs. That is not the case. 685 What we need is much more sophisticated modelling for future demand, so we can both find a way towards both sustainable and good quality public services and to provide a fair sustainable public sector pension. As the Medium-Term Financial Strategy says, it will need both politicians and officers to think differently. So let's start doing just that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 690 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon. Members of Keys, I am delighted to second the Hon. Member for Douglas East’s 695 important motion. A famous Hans Christian Anderson story comes to mind to justify the provision of more information supporting the Medium-Term Financial Strategy before changes to the public sector pension schemes are considered. Here goes: Many, many years ago lived an emperor, who thought so much of new clothes that he spent 700 a lot of money to obtain them. One day two swindlers came to his empire. They made people believe that they were weavers, and declared they could manufacture the finest cloth to be imagined. The clothes were not only exceptionally beautiful, but possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. And so on and so on, through the tale, until one day when the emperor marched in a 705 procession, and all who saw him exclaimed: ‘Indeed, the emperor's new suit is incomparable!’

______1032 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid. Never emperor's clothes were more admired. ‘But he has nothing on at all,’ said a little child at last. ‘Good heavens! Listen to the voice of an innocent child,’ said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. But 710 eventually, all the people said, ‘He has nothing on at all!’ There are several new and newish Members in this House already – more will be arriving in October. The public sector pensions approach taken cannot be inside an Emperor’s New Clothes Medium-Term Financial Strategy which those innocent new or newish Members might perceive as wearing nothing at all. Rather, the next House needs ‘foundations for a sustainable future’ 715 and ‘robust finances for future generations’, as the Treasury Minister put it in February in his Budget speech. This is what this motion will achieve if passed today. Mr Speaker, Hon. Members, we already need reassurance, in fact, in respect of the assumptions in the July 2015 Medium-Term Financial Strategy. I bring to your attention the statement in paragraph 2.13, which has already proved to be demonstrably wrong. Just nine 720 months ago the other place was told:

The Public Service Employees Pension Reserve is being drawn upon each year … While difficult to predict with certainty, the acceleration in draw-down from this reserve means that it will probably be exhausted in less than 20 years.

In fact, this reserve drawdown has been accelerated from 20 years to five years in nine months, not slowed down. I, for one, need supporting information to reassure me in respect of other assumptions. Firstly, how would the £75 million per annum structural deficit be if the public sector 725 pensions proposals were in place? Might it be greater? Secondly, how certain can we be about the forecast £30 million-plus annual rise in Government income – not economic growth, despite confused communication on this point – especially given that Government income has not actually been rising really for a decade, and the Treasury Minister has made a promise to end the drip, drip, drip of charges? From whom will 730 an additional £141 million be collected by 2021-22? Is this forecast really – again, quoting the Treasury Minister’s Budget speech words – responsible, prudent and realistic? Thirdly, in addition to requiring restrained pay growth of 1% per year, the MTFS requires savings of nearly £6 million per annum, or £34 million by 2021-22. Savings or cuts where and how? Furthermore, there have been clear statements that nothing can be ring fenced, but are 735 public sector pension payments not being ring fenced with the current proposals, and is this what the general public can come to accept as being the top priority? Fourthly, recommendation 2 in Treasury’s July 2015 Social Security and National Insurance Reform package was to ‘remove contracting out’, the lower National Insurance employer and employee contributions for those in the public sector pensions and in other pension schemes. 740 Each year this recommendation is not implemented costs the nation’s National Insurance Fund around £10 million. Have those working in the public sector been consulted and notified that this contracting-out benefit might end next year, and what will the MTFS impact be? Fifthly, how far has Treasury got with Social Security/National Insurance recommendation 3 that ‘Treasury should consult further with employers and pension providers in the Isle of Man 745 regarding the introduction of a compulsory workplace pension, and report back to Tynwald in July 2016 on the feasibility of the proposal’? Surely these new arrangements should be implemented alongside those made to public sector funds? I also seek explanations. Why has the Public Service Employees’ Pensions Reserve Fund, which was established in 1994, not been built up more during the good times? The fund’s 750 purpose was to provide a long-term reserve to stabilise the annual financing and to meet the emerging pensions liability. First Actuarial, the union’s appointed actuary, seem to have surprised about this fund and the size of it.

______1033 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

As early as 2006 the pensions Select Committee recommended that ‘a greater proportion of pensions liabilities is provided for from investments’ and that all pension contributions should be 755 ring fenced. Unfortunately neither of these things happened. A younger Treasury Minister, a newish Member back in October 2006, spoke in that debate, and he seems to have changed his mind during the last decade regarding public sector pensions, and as a senior member of this Government I believe an explanation about why he has changed his mind would be helpful – very helpful indeed. The Hon. Member for Ayre argued in the Select 760 Committee civil service pensions debate then that:

The opinion which was arrived at showing a deficit of £1.1 billion rising at just under £50 million a year is based on questionable data. It could well be worse. This is a black hole and we need to do something about it now. The Civil Service Commission need to stop digging, we are in a big enough hole already and firm action is required. If it was my decision, I would close the Civil Service Pension Scheme as it stands to new entrants now and stop the haemorrhage … I had the certainty that my employer was making a cash contribution to a ring-fenced pension fund to provide a pension for me when I retired. What do our employees, what do our support staff have? They have a promise to pay. It is not even a promise to pay from us; it is a promise to pay which we have issued on behalf of our children and grandchildren. How good is that, especially with the demographic profile and the rapidly ageing nature of the population …?

Mr Speaker, Hon. Members, I voted against this year’s Budget, positively because of its underdeveloped Medium-Term Financial Strategy. As I argued in February, any government that reveals itself to be complacent should expect to be punished. Mr Teare told us in his Budget speech this year that ‘work is underway to produce a detailed 765 financial model setting out the Medium-Term Financial Strategy’. Let’s see this model and how the forecasts arising from it are derived, to convince us that this Department is not complacent. In closing, as always, my glass is full – (Mr Robertshaw: Half-full.) Completely full, but in addition today my fingers are crossed because of the enormity of the public sector pensions issue and the risk it could pose to Government finances and social consensus. 770 Isle of Man Government has a public sector pension liability which is two-thirds of our entire annual national income, having increased by over £600 million last year. Isle of Man Government has a public sector pensions cost which is one-tenth of Government income and rising. As Mr Robertshaw has suggested, there could be serious implications. Another current reality is that the proposed Medium-Term Financial Strategy is to deplete 775 the Public Sector Pensions Reserve by 2021 if things go as planned. I have had many emails and letters making different arguments from different perspectives about this in recent weeks. But most shockingly, five Members of this House wrote to Isle of Man Newspapers on 13th April about a ‘growing sense of pension apartheid that is slowly dividing society’. Apartheid! Even the suggestion of such an abhorrent society here in our Island 780 requires that we need more information about the Medium-Term Financial Management Strategy before we can consider changes to public sector pension schemes in Tynwald. We need to get this right. The truth might shock us, but we need to know. Many worry that valuable public servants will be made promises that cannot be kept, as other promises have not been, including those made – in good faith, I am sure – at the beginning 785 of this administration. The truth might make us angry; indeed, some already are angry that this issue has not been addressed over the last decade, or even before that. Why is our scheme unfunded when the Jersey scheme has 100% asset coverage, a £1.6 billion fund, the Isle of Man Post Office pension scheme has assets which nearly cover its scheme liability, and the Isle of Man Local Government 790 Superannuation Scheme has three-quarters coverage of liability? But we need to know the truth so we can become reconciled with it and work out an approach which is fair across society and between the generations as well as between the public and private sectors. Eventually we will all have to accept where we are, so that a realistic agreement can be reached and decisions taken about public sector pensions in the context of changes to the state 795 pension and other state payments, private pensions and, most importantly, the public revenue imbalance.

______1034 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

I am hoping that when we get the information, it will be reassuringly positive – fingers crossed – and that the perception of apartheid will go away. As Nelson Mandela said on receiving the apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report:

The Commission was not required to muster a definitive and comprehensive history of the past three decades. Nor was it expected to conjure up instant reconciliation. And it does not claim to have delivered these either. Its success in any case depended on how far all of us co-operated with it … A better future depends on all of us lending a hand – your hand, my hand.

800 So I conclude with two observations. Firstly, we have to engage with everybody. It is quite clear that some individuals perceive they are having life-changing consequences imposed on them by politicians informed by a potentially biased working group, in their view. The better way of going about this is through direct negotiations, after full disclosure of complete information, as envisaged in this motion. 805 My second observation is that politicians collectively have to stand up and say we have made mistakes. More transparency in respect of where we are, where we can go, how we got where we are. We need that. We need more information supporting the Medium-Term Financial Strategy before we can come close to handling our valuable public service staff expectations – Prospect members and prison officers amongst them – alongside assuaging the scepticism about 810 affordability, which many have. The public sector pension decision needs to be informed and balanced. This motion will contribute to that. I commend it, wherever you are on the Manx political spectrum, whatever you think should happen next. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Hon. Members. 815 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Michael.

Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just start by congratulating the mover of the motion and the seconder on two high- 820 quality contributions this morning, which I think stated the case extremely eloquently. It is extremely unfortunate that the Council of Ministers chose to withdraw the Tynwald motion that was before us two weeks ago. That was a critical debate, a debate that was critical to every man, woman and child living and working on the Isle of Man; a debate that would have sought to determine not the solution to the public sector pensions deficit and liabilities, but 825 perhaps the direction of a critical step along the way to determining the solution – or, indeed, the solutions – to this rapidly manifesting financial crisis. I do not make an apology for the use of the words ‘critical’ or ‘crisis’. ‘Critical’ I use in the present tense and ‘crisis’ I use in the future tense, because that is what this debate will surely become if we cannot reach a solution that is acceptable to each and every one of us on behalf of 830 our constituents. And when I refer to ‘every man, woman and child’ I do so to represent and reflect all our interests: the interests of the private sector taxpayer; the interests of the employer, the Government, in delivering its service; the interests of the employee; and, most of all, the interests of those who may be best described as having their best years ahead of them. This debate, therefore, is another step along the pathway to success or failure in resolving 835 not only the financial problems of the final salary pension scheme, but taking steps to ensure that Manx public finances are sustainable well into the future. I absolutely welcome the efforts that have been made to date by the unions and the PSPA to deliver the solutions set out in the reports that have been laid before Tynwald, but I regret that these solutions, in dealing with the problem, appear to have dealt with it in isolation and have 840 not clearly laid out the impact on public services and expenditure in the medium term. We must know and we must understand the whole picture before accepting any deal. The figures laid out in appendix 1 to the report entitled ‘Addressing the legacy funding gap’ show in clear and concise details the impact of the current proposals on public funds: £44 million to be found this year, £52 million to be found next year, rising to £100 million in

______1035 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

845 2022 and then rising to £150 million. How is this affordable, Mr Speaker? We cannot even deal with the black hole at present, and here we are proposing that we can find an extra £60 million in pension revenues in little more than the end of the next parliamentary term. Where is this money going to come from in such large quantities? This has not clearly been explained to us. Is it coming from cuts? Where will these come from? Charges? Upon whom? Increased growth? 850 Exactly how much? If we can agree on nothing else, at least agree that the scale of the proposed funding from revenue is at best optimistic and at worst possibly unmanageable, which will make the effective delivery of frontline services severely restrained. The general synopsis of where we are at is that we have a two-tier approach: tier 1 says that the schemes have become unaffordable and we need a new solution, termed under the cost 855 envelope proportion; and tier 2 says that we have a huge legacy funding issue that we need to push over to the taxpayer to resolve. I have dealt with tier 2, the legacy debt, by highlighting what these proposals may have on Government spending, and indeed fully support the points that have been made by Mr Robertshaw and Mr Thomas this morning. But what about tier 1, the cost envelope 860 proposals? Again, we need to see these fully costed out over the next few years and recognise any impacts that they may or may not have on public services. Mr Speaker, we are not alone in facing up to these significant challenges with our pension schemes. All across the world, from Jersey to New Jersey to Jamaica, governments and authorities are coming to terms with the realities of over-generous public sector pension 865 schemes. In Jersey there is a move to change the schemes to career average calculations, with increasing pressure, I might add, from the private sector for greater changes. In New Jersey they are battling unfunded liabilities of some £80 billion. And in Jamaica it is all change as the government seeks a change to a defined contribution scheme in the very near future in order to move on to a more sustainable footing. 870 The bottom line is that final salary schemes as a financial product appear to be discredited because the maths no longer add up. The variables appear to be too great and the resultant liabilities are too great for countries and corporations alike to bear. You simply cannot run a funded final salary scheme, let alone an unfunded final salary scheme, and the evidence is before us week in, week out, in well-researched and well-written articles in magazines and 875 newspapers the world over. I am still inclined to believe and support the fact that at the very least our schemes should be closed to new entrants, and in doing so perhaps would support the Hon. Member for Ayre and his words those 10 years or so ago. And so I ask myself what is the cost envelope: is the cost envelope simply a rejigged discredited scheme presented in a different manner that allows for greater flexibility to impose 880 lesser terms for employees and greater terms for employers? In others words, are we going to see the younger employees cast into the valley of uncertainty for evermore, along with the taxpayer – a valley, by the way, from which there will be no way out, possibly? I fear so. But we need to understand the affordability in the greater context and the impact of these proposals on Government finances. 885 What we do now need are not only facts but sound decision making, and in order to do that we now need to understand the total impact on the current proposals on Government finances in the whole. The Treasury Minister has, in fact, set out a medium-term financial plan, but perhaps for some, and me included, it lacks details; and for some, me included, the medium-term financial 890 plan, as presented in the Budget, really was not what was going to be acceptable, because of the premonitions and forecasts that it had made. I was interested, of course, to read back over that speech from the Treasury Minister. There was one line or so that caught my line, and it said:

The MTFS plans to control expenditure to allow us to meet the shortfall in pensions funding …

______1036 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

In other words, Mr Speaker, it seemed to me that spending was working towards controlling 895 pension costs. In other words, everything was focused around pension costs and we were going to manage our spending behind that. And really, for many of us, I think, in here today, it is vital that we understand that we are going to deliver proper frontline services first and foremost, and then behind that we will work out how best to manage the liabilities or so of our pension funding. But we do need to see this laid out in a fairly clear and concise manner. 900 I do want to say to the Treasury Minister that my door is open if he wants assistance with the project in terms of laying that out, and it is important now that the Council of Ministers work with us to find the right solutions. I think we should not be swayed that certain options are impractical, that by following certain paths we will not be able to recruit medics or doctors or teachers. We cannot have public 905 finances held to ransom by key workers, but in any case changes could be successfully managed. I would ask the public sector to understand that what is happening is primarily happening because the Isle of Man needs to take action to prevent a significant deterioration of public finances, not because there is a hidden agenda against the public sector or because of the politics of envy. What we are ultimately seeking to do is to protect public finances and thus jobs. 910 It may well be a valid argument that we will have difficulty attracting key workers by changing these pension schemes, but it is equally a valid argument that we will not have the money to fund these services effectively unless changes are made. The next critical step, therefore, is to evidence the impact of the proposed reforms on Government spending priorities and to assess whether or not these are acceptable. That is what 915 the motion is asking and I would urge full support for this next critical step forward.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 920 I have got no problem whatsoever in supporting this motion. What I would say is the comments I made in 2006 were very prescient. Why did I change my view? It was the cashflow matter, and the projections which were presented to me at the time then are as relevant now: how do we manage the cashflow? The three contributions we have had so far deal certainly right on that issue. So I have got no problem at all with it. 925 One thing I would say to the Hon. Member who has just resumed his seat – he offered to work with me: it is a bit late now, because I did give him a chance, nearly five years ago, to come and join me in Treasury, but it was declined at that time. As I said in my speech in July 2015, when moving the motion on the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, I would encourage all Hon. Members to provide their thoughts and input into the 930 proposed Strategy. We need your feedback. The Strategy cannot be delivered by Treasury alone. It requires not only Government but all Hon. Members to buy into the principles. As I stated during both the debate in July and in my Budget speech, there are three broad categories of measures which can be used to balance the Budget and reduce reliance on reserves: increasing income through fees, charges and taxation; reducing public sector spending; 935 and increasing income by growing the economy. I also stated in my Budget speech that there is a limit to the level of fee and charge rises that are acceptable to the public. Increased revenue from this source will therefore be limited. This administration has indicated that the Zero-10 tax regime will be maintained. For me, Zero-10 is the engine of our economic growth and we cannot abandon the principle of 940 competitive taxation. Therefore, increased taxation receipts, both direct and indirect, have to come from growth. The Budget has been produced with an element of spending savings built in over the next six years. Options of how these may be delivered have been discussed. However, it will be the role of the next administration to establish the service levels, the services they wish to offer and how 945 these will be delivered. Yes, savings can be made through the use of online services and other

______1037 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

such measures. However, Departments will have to make decisions to set priorities and allocate spending. This does not mean that we have not started on this process. The Digital Strategy, which was endorsed by Tynwald in June 2015, is one of the key elements of this process. It has the 950 objectives of offering a more streamlined approach and easier public access. The Strategy created to achieve this is starting to deliver efficiencies to Government, individuals and businesses. From the Hon. Member’s motion, it appears that the concern of Hon. Members relates to the economic growth required to fund, amongst other things, the legacy pension gap. 955 Since the Budget, there have been a number of factors that will have an effect on the growth targets and the income figures shown in the Pink Book. There are a number of positive factors: the signing of the VAT Agreement, the external interest in the new Enterprise Development Fund, and the signing of the new reciprocal agreement in relation to state pensions with the United Kingdom. 960 There are other factors, the effect of which at this stage cannot be quantified but need to be acknowledged. The factors in relation to tax transparency have, over the last five weeks, been moving rapidly and Hon. Members will be aware of the action that has been taken by this Government to ensure that we are at the forefront of changes. Our objective is to be a competitive, prudent, international jurisdiction. The events of the last few weeks highlight how 965 strategies to achieve an objective must be both flexible and fluid. Doing nothing is not an option. The changes in the world economy are happening faster than ever and we need to be more responsive to helping our sectors to the changing environment. Mr Speaker, it is easy to say that we need economic growth, but we have to have a detailed strategy to support these easy-to-say words. Our vision for growth is laid out in Vision 2020. 970 There is a difference between objectives and a strategy. The medium-term financial objective is to balance the Budget and to reduce reliance on reserves. The strategy is how we do this, backed by a plan of what we will actually do. So how do we propose to do this? We have, over the last 20 years or more, continued to diversify the economy. We continue to do this. The new Enterprise Development Fund, which was approved by Tynwald in October 975 2015, is one of the key drivers of the Government’s income growth strategy by providing funding for local businesses wishing to expand, off-Island businesses wishing to relocate, and start-up businesses. These contribute to economic growth by payroll tax receipts, local spend by the business, local spend by employees, and population growth of the economically active. The growth of the economically active is key to helping achieve the increase in Government revenue. 980 The strategy also includes the continuation of the Department of Economic Development Financial Assistance Scheme, support for vocation training, support for farming and the food industry from DEFA, the expansion of the range and level of courses offered locally by the Department of Education and Children, regeneration of our towns and villages, and support to help people get back into the work place. Behind each driver is a detailed plan of the work that 985 will be undertaken. Mr Speaker, Council will bring back to the last sitting of Keys a report detailing the strategies and plans which are in place and are driving economic growth. However, as mentioned earlier, Government cannot do this on its own. It is quite clear to me that negative statements from some quarters of this Hon. House are having an adverse and counterproductive effect. It is 990 difficult for us to move forward in the face of self-inflicted wounds which create uncertainty in the minds of those we want to influence to create economic activity. The old adage is very relevant – a house divided falls. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

995 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______1038 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

I would like to join Mr Cannan in his congratulations of the mover and the seconder of this motion, and for their excellent speeches which accompanied them. I think they are going to be 1000 well worth reading, in Hansard, over again at a later date. I think they are right: we have had an awful lot of information, but we have not had all we need to feel comfortable, with the current proposals, that they are actually workable. And even if they are, I really do not feel that all the options that are available to us have been currently explored properly. I think we have to be honest. I think we have to acknowledge that there is 1005 not going to be a completely fair solution to the current crisis. And I do call it a crisis, because it is the single biggest threat to the future of our Island. We have to resolve it. We have to find the least worst option, the most fair option we can find, but there is not going to be a completely fair option. I think we have to be honest with everybody about that, (A Member: Hear, hear.) and it is because this administration and the previous one have failed miserably to tackle the 1010 problem while there was time to solve things on a more gradual basis. Mr Cannan is right: the money is going to run out before the end of the next administration. So now we are going to have to act quickly and we are going to have to make sure that we find the right solution – or the right combination of solutions, because there is not going to be one single bullet, one single silver bullet, that is going to solve all this. I think we have to look at all 1015 the options and see which way we can tweak what to get to the result that is fairest to everybody. We have not been given the option of linking the retirement age of the public sector to the state pension age. What effect would this have on the finances of the Public Sector Pension Scheme? We have not been told the effect of capping lump sums or capping some of the 1020 pensions, what level can we afford now and what level is fair in the current circumstances. Why aren’t we being given all the different options? If we tweak this, we tweak this, we tweak this, what is the end result then? I really think we do have to look at all this. The Treasury Minister has brought up the difficulty of closing the scheme to new entrants, or closing it completely, because of the cashflow problem. But the officers did acknowledge that a 1025 mirror scheme, or a notional scheme, is feasible in theory. (Mr Teare: In theory.) They did say, and quite rightly, that a similar scheme had been tried in Sweden and had not worked as anticipated, but that was because a lot of that was linked to the state pension scheme and you cannot have your safety net, your basic state pension, linked to investment performance – but you could have when it is your secondary pension, and that over time that would solve the 1030 cashflow problem. And it would actually crystallise our liability if we did that. We would say, ‘This is the liability and it is not going to get any bigger.’ When you do that, you can take your time resolving that in a measured way because you know that is all you are going to have to pay, because going forward it is solved and you have the time to take your time and do it on a gradual basis to solve the existing crystallised liability that is not going to get any bigger. 1035 I do worry about some of the figures that have been used in the current proposals: the idea that we are going to have an increase in growth for the next 40 years to make the legacy payments possible. That means that this country would have had an economic growth every year, year on year, for 70 years. That is wonderful if we can do it, but I am not sure that it is actually realistic to base financial forecasts on that assumption. And they are also saying that 1040 they will use a quarter of this growth in Government income to fund this legacy debt. Is that a fair way of doing it? Is it sustainable? Is it achievable? There are a lot of unknowns with the current proposition and I do think that the information that has been requested in the motion will help us understand the effect of some of these. So we do not know what impact it is going to have, what forecast impact it is going to have on the frontline services, as has been 1045 mentioned by others, and I think that is really worrying, particularly at a time when we are already being told there is not enough money in our Health Services and we are hearing of schools that cannot afford to buy any more books at the moment. I think it is very worrying, but we need to understand it. If you cannot understand what the effect is, you cannot come up with a solution – the fairest solution to it.

______1039 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

1050 I do hope that this motion is supported. I think it is really worthwhile supporting it. I think it will give us all a lot more clarity, a lot more information, and we will be able to see the effects. But I do still think that all these other options need to be considered as well. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

1055 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin.

The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In supporting the motion, it ties in exactly with what we have been hoping would happen over the last number of months, so I am very grateful to the mover of the motion and his 1060 reaffirmation of Government policy, which stems from his time in Council, which was smaller, smarter Government. That has not changed. The language and the words that are used are ones which are often shared, and I do not believe that we are all that far away, because we are trying to solve a problem which we all know is really important. The mover, Mr Robertshaw talked about all areas to contribute to reducing costs, which was 1065 talked about in the Budget speech, and that is exactly what we have got to try and do, and I believe genuinely we are all attempting to do today. One of the challenges we have is that we have got to get as much information out there as possible. The Chief Minister has said this, and we have said it in our presentations on the radio, to Members, to the unions, that we actually need to get as much information … And I agree 1070 entirely with the Member for South Douglas, which is not a frequent occurrence but we are trying, all of us, to look for the least worst option, because none of this is going to have a simple solution. There is not one silver bullet, as she referred to. What we do have are lots of opinions, and opinions need to be evidenced by fact. My colleague in West Douglas always talks about evidence-based facts, but one of the difficulties we 1075 have here is just how much factual information we can give when, as the mover himself talks about, the macro-economics of the world situation and the external impacts that may be beyond our control. Therefore, anything we are talking about in five years’ time, even three years’ time, can only be the best estimate based on the information we have at the moment. But all this information will help. I think one of the difficulties we have – and I referred to it 1080 last week – is you could compare the argument about pensions to the Brexit argument going on in the United Kingdom. There, you have people in the same party – if I use examples of David Cameron and Michael Gove – available the same information, yet taking totally polar opposite views on where they believe we should go in the United Kingdom/Europe argument. We have in here a number of Members in the pensions who are convinced that we should close the scheme. 1085 We have others who are convinced that the mirror scheme could work. And I hope we are right and the time we have given everybody, which was a deliberate attempt to try, in withdrawing the last motion, to give us this time to get the information so that we can explain as best possible the mirror scheme and the implications, the closure scheme and the implications. I think that it was Mr Cannan who talked … I was delighted to hear him talk about this, which 1090 is the need to deliver frontline services but also to be able to recruit and retain staff, because this is fundamental to what we are trying to talk about. We want a smaller Government and, by the nature of that, that might mean we are delivering fewer services directly by Government, and if we reduce the number of staff then we reduce the costs to Government and the taxpayer. This was attempted to be clarified in one of the presentations, but we did not get our message 1095 across. We will try and do better. We will try and give you all the information, whether it be on the Medium-Term Financial Strategy or whether it be on the PSPA reports, but what we are all trying to do is to find a solution which is acceptable, sustainable and fair. I believe that what we have come up with has a way forward but it is not the only solution. And in the same way as the Brexit argument, we will not know what is right until after the 1100 decision is taken and there is no going back. So I do not want to rush this debate. I do not want to rush into making a decision and dying in a ditch trying to defend the PSPA report. We believe

______1040 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

we have done things as well as we can, we believe we have a way forward, but other opinions are equally valid. If we can give you that information, we will attempt to do it as openly and honestly as we can. We will attempt to do that again further with the public, who are going to 1105 be the taxpayers and funding this for decades to come. I think the fundamental from my position is that we require a level of calm amongst our workforce so that they do not make urgent decisions based on the worst fear. When the Member for Michael talks about ‘crisis’ and ‘critical’, we understand what he means because it is critical we get this as right as we can. If we get it wrong, it could lead to bigger problems in the 1110 future. But I would urge all people listening: this is not a crisis; this is a really hard challenge that we are going to have to rise to. (Mr Thomas: Hear, hear.) My good friend for West Douglas, Mr Thomas, was talking about whether the PSPA money in the Report is ring fenced – and I think that is the other thing we have got to factor in. I, more than most, understand the implications of a legal challenge to decisions made by Governments. 1115 Therefore we have to make sure that you are given all the information as to why we may have come to our conclusion. Bear in mind that I, and the Committees, have had maybe 12 months of working at this. We have attempted to give you as much information – and the public – as fairly as we can, but there is an awful lot to be taken in without a right or a wrong answer. So I welcome the motion today and I thank all those who have contributed and those yet to 1120 come, because what we want to do is take the Hansard away from here, understand what you have asked for and provide that information in the way you have requested it as best we can. And even if we do not agree at the end of that, it will not be based on lack of information – it will be based on opinion. That is fine, that is what we are here for; but there should not be a situation where you say you did not have access to enough information in order to make a 1125 decision. I hope we can do that during this administration, because we need to start; and, as I mentioned in one of the speeches in the presentations, if it is like triage we have to try and stop the blood leaking out as quickly as it is at the moment. Therefore my intention in what we are trying to do with the PSPA Report is to try to do some triage, to stop what is happening now so we can look back at how we got here. But, more 1130 importantly, my argument is about preventing it getting worse and having a solution going forward – and to make that in an affordable lifetime of a number of decades, rather than thinking we can solve this in the administration ahead of us. So thank you for this debate; we will have more and more information as best we can. But please, continue to talk on this issue, raise your concerns, raise your questions – and that will 1135 give us a script to try and provide that information.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, the Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1140 I only have a few points to add to what has turned out to be quite an interesting and balanced debate on what is clearly the most challenging issue that we have to face – which I have said on many occasions. Not just the most difficult challenge we have for this current administration, but for many administrations to come – this issue will not go away. There are two or three points though, Mr Speaker, that I would like to clarify, just to put 1145 Members’ minds at rest. First of all, when the Council of Ministers decided not to move the resolution in Tynwald, it was not in any way to dodge a debate or to deny Members an input into that debate, it was quite specifically because we had heard comments from Members that they were concerned about some of the recommendations in it. They wanted more time to consider it and the opportunity to have input into it as well. So the purpose of the deferral was 1150 in no way to dodge debate, it was actually to encourage debate. I followed that up, and most Members attended the meeting last week, which was an honest, sincere approach to all Members of Tynwald to join with us in a debate to give you all opportunities to put your ideas forward – where you think there are deficiencies or where you

______1041 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

think there are further areas of investigation that we need to carry out. The purpose of that 1155 meeting last week was to reach out to all Members of Tynwald to work as a team. At the start of this administration I spoke, naïvely, about having a ‘Government of national unity’ – that did not quite work out the way I planned, I have to say. But, nevertheless, this is one issue above all, Mr Speaker, which demands a Government of national unity. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) This is one time when Government needs to put all the political 1160 posturing and point-scoring to one side, and work together to find a way forward on what is going to be potentially – if it goes wrong – a very serious issue in the long term for the viability of Government finances in the future. There are a couple of points, though, that we must just bear in mind. The starting point on all this ... and I do disagree with the Hon. Member for South Douglas, who implies that nothing has 1165 been done for the last two administrations. A huge amount of work has been done over the last two administrations, but the whole process of stabilising Government pensions in the round took place many years before that; and in fact we started off 10 or 15 years ago bringing together GUS in the first place – which was bringing together 15 separate pension schemes right across Government, in all different aspects. 1170 That was a huge amount of work that took place – it took five years from start to finish to actually get overall agreement to this new scheme. So that, in itself, was a huge piece of work which had to be done and it has, in fact, laid the foundation now for GUS, and gives us a clearer idea of what the financial implications of all those schemes now, all brought together into a single entity, might be. 1175 We have also, over this period, Mr Speaker, taken the best possible advice that we can get. We are not pension experts, no one in Government has that ... certainly no political Member in Government has that level of knowledge and expertise on pensions that gives us the absolute right of understanding all aspects of it. We have taken the best external advice, and Hymans Robertson are still at the forefront of pensions advisers in the United Kingdom. The scheme 1180 which was initially brought up was recommended to us as being a viable route forward. The Hon. Member for East Douglas, Mr Robertshaw, touched on two or three of the points, but particularly the fact that external factors have knocked those original projections sideways. We must not lose sight of that, as we often seem to. We have not just arrived here by accident, we have been battered by external storms, the like of which we have never seen before. We had 1185 the VAT crisis which was forced upon us by the United Kingdom government; we had the banking crisis, the credit crunch and the world recession which followed that. That completely distorted the long-term economic projections that were given. As a result of all that we have gone into – and will continue to be part of – a record period of low, or no, interest rates. That is likely to stay with us for a long time as well. 1190 Return on equities, as a result of the economic changes which have taken place, have also diminished dramatically. And all these things, Mr Speaker, have had a direct impact on the long- term projections which were put in place by our experts at that time. So to say nothing at all has happened and we have just sat back and done nothing is completely wrong – a huge amount of work has gone on and is still going on now to find a workable solution. 1195 Mr Speaker, I will not go on at any length. My colleagues, the Minister for Policy and Reform and Mr Teare, the Minister for Treasury have outlined the background to some of the areas. All I would say at this point, Mr Speaker, is that we support the resolution and we welcome the opportunity for a wider debate on this. I do hope this does not become a political football because it is far too important (A Member: Hear, hear.) to be used in that manner. 1200 I continue to extend a welcome to all Members of Tynwald, both in this Hon. Chamber and in another place, to put forward their input into reviewing what we have done, and into looking for possible new opportunities and new areas that perhaps we have not looked at in the same depth, to try and come to a consensus agreement at the end of this which we can move forward with – perhaps not entirely comfortably. But I think again, as the Member for South Douglas has 1205 referred to, to try and identify the least-worst option going forward.

______1042 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

These are very difficult times and I think Mr Cannan, the Member for Michael, also raised the point that the Isle of Man is not alone in this. Many countries all around the world are in the same position, and many private companies are also in the same position. We have seen the collapse of British Home Stores – perhaps not quite the same position, (Laughter and 1210 interjections) but we have seen the impact that pension liabilities can have. I hope our pension liability has not gone in the same direction –

Mr Robertshaw: To Monaco, yes!

1215 The Chief Minister: So, Mr Speaker, I support the resolution and I thank Members for the balanced contributions we have had today. I think there is a general recognition in this Hon. Chamber that we have to work together to find a solution. Council will do its utmost to arrange meetings or whatever Members feel appropriate to discuss this matter further, both in terms of finding a solution to the pensions proposals themselves and also to review the medium-term 1220 financial strategy to see whether that is still appropriate in the light of economic changes which are taking place around us. There is an urgency about this though, Mr Speaker, because the economic storms which engulfed us in 2008 have not gone away and we are in a protracted period – particularly if there is a Brexit – of economic uncertainty, which will impact on the Island if we are not careful. We 1225 have to be very aware of that and do our best to find a solution which will enable us to batten down the hatches sufficiently to ride out the storms which may be ahead of us. We do have an absolute responsibility to the taxpayers of this Island to ensure that they are not unnecessarily exposed to the cost of this scheme, but equally we have a responsibility to our workforce to ensure that they have the pensions that they believe they have contributed to over the years. 1230 So there is a big challenge here for Government, Mr Speaker. I hope today’s debate and the tone of the debate is sufficient and we can now work together and take this forward. We had hoped to get it to Tynwald and get an agreement on it before we go into recess, but if that is not possible then it will need a another month or two’s thought. Because of the fact that this is a 30- or 40-year-challenge for Government, a delay of another month or two is not going to cause 1235 huge problems if we can get a workable solution at the end of it. So with that, Mr Speaker, I will support the motion.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Peake.

1240 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. While this debate is useful, I do think it is the workshops which are the key, where we are going to get the greater understanding into this large, national issue. I think the public now want transparency, they want to see and understand what the issue is and they want to be treated like adults – and I think this is what we are here to do. 1245 I think it is important that we keep your timeline that is focused and we can deliver on that; so I would still like the opportunity for it to come back to Tynwald in June. I think it is important to do that. It is the workshops where we are going to get the solutions understood, and it is our role to encourage the experts to bring forward solutions that are sustainable; and it is our responsibility then to support one of those solutions which is best for the Isle of Man. 1250 That is our responsibility and that is what I would like: to understand over the next few weeks and for the debate to come back in Tynwald in June, as promised. Thank you.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. 1255 Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______1043 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

In seeking a viable solution to the public sector pension dilemma there can be no winners. The employer will have to pay more, and the employees will have to pay more to get less. And, whilst the motion refers to the medium-term strategy, we have not got to forget that this 1260 problem is going to last for 40 years or more; and it means that circumstances will change over this period perhaps many times and things will happen that we cannot envisage. The Government have actually said that there will need to be a review every three years, but the assumptions made in any proposed way forward could change within months depending on decisions made in other parts of the world over which we have no influence. Therefore I ask all 1265 Hon. Members to take heed of the matters clearly put in the mover’s speech. Any proposals put forward and adopted by Government have to have a solid foundation if there is any chance of finding a medium- to long-term solution. And, as the Hon. Member for Douglas East has clearly demonstrated, only half the job has been done – we only have half the picture. Much is reliant on future Department plans and staffing levels – certainly for the next six 1270 years – but where will we find the £100 million from Departments’ spending, in that time? The information is essential, yet the question is: have the Departments yet made any such plans? How will they get costs under control? We are stressing the need to increase our population by 500 to 1,000 people annually for the next 20 years so, just for one example, how will the Department of Health expect to prevent its costs from ever-increasing? 1275 All this is relevant to the viable answer solving the public sector pension major dilemma. I take note also and agree with the Hon. Member for Douglas South that there is a lot of reliance on growth – 2% growth for the next 40 years or so; and as much as we would like to see it, that cannot be guaranteed, so we need to have an alternative to the answer rather than relying on the growth. 1280 This debate could have been held two weeks ago if the matter had not been withdrawn from the Tynwald agenda, because it is clear that the proposal that was put forward at that time was flawed. But we are all in the same boat here and there is a potential doomsday scenario; there can be no ‘them and us’ and we cannot afford to get it wrong. Making the wrong decision now in order to rush it through by June could leave the next administration with its hands tied behind 1285 its back. I do want to refer briefly to the public accusation that was aimed at backbenchers, that they were trying to delay any decision and that it was electioneering. The facts show that it was an accusation without any foundation. I am confident that the majority of backbenchers without any doubt would have liked to have discussed this two weeks ago, if the matter had not been 1290 withdrawn from the Tynwald paper. If there was a move to delay the debate by backbenchers, then we would not have been having this debate today. We have really got to push together to get a solution and, whether it is before the election or after the election, it has got to be right. As I say, there can now be no ‘them and us’. With the accrual of billions of pounds in liabilities there will be a need to take steps in a logical and calm 1295 way to get this as right as possible; be confident that the pieces of the jigsaw fit and that consultation takes place with all the stakeholders, including the public. I believe an independent expert view needs to be obtained; and I do welcome the statement today from members of the Council of Ministers and the Government that others can contribute positively – and I think that is a very important step. 1300 My major concern, personally, is to investigate the closing of the scheme to new entrants in a way that will be affordable, whilst ensuring that employers will be confident that the decisions taken in the short term will ensure that they receive a pension when it is their turn. There is also great public disquiet at the massive lump sums that are being taken out, particularly by those taking early retirement and depleting the pension fund. In the last financial year there were two 1305 lump sum payouts of over half a million pounds; and 70 payments between £100,000 and £250,000. In the previous year there were 117 payouts between £100,000 and £250,000; and in the year before that in this category there were 83 payouts. This is a matter which also needs to be part of the solution.

______1044 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

So, as I say, I believe from what has been said today that everybody can work together, 1310 everybody has to work together; and therefore I do hope, in congratulating the mover on putting this motion down today, that everybody will support this motion as it is a genuine attempt to move forward in a positive manner.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk. 1315 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not a pension expert and have never claimed to be one, but over the number of years I have been in this House, from when it first started in 2006 for my journey forward, I have seen dramatic changes. I have seen issues coming forward to this House, and to other places, which 1320 we have managed; and through pulling together we have worked to overcome certain issues. This was another particular issue – as Members have already indicated today – that it is not just an Isle of Man scenario, there are other issues coming about in other parts of the world. If I could say to Hon. Members today, what we need to do is also talk it up a little bit regarding – as the Chief Minister or John Shimmin have said – we need to say, ‘We are a good 1325 economy; we are a good jurisdiction; we need to grow our economy.’ The Treasury Minister has already indicated that we have negotiated the VAT issue and we have come out of that scenario. We have also been looking from a long time ago … and I am not in favour of the single legal entity but, of online services, I am – Mr Robertshaw. We will probably get there in the end. I am amazed at the silo mentality issue, all the time. Members in this House and other places 1330 need to cut that out and we need to all work together on this particular issue. If there is a silo mentality between Departments, and Ministers, or Members, it is up to the Chief Minister himself to identify them and squeeze them out – no matter who they are, whether you are in a ministerial Department or not. We need to grow that economy, we need to say this is a vibrant economy for those who want 1335 to come to the Isle of Man to live and establish their home. And, as others have said today, about the Enterprise Fund … we put £50 million into an enterprise fund to stimulate the economy. We have got to see that develop. The pensions are always an issue; and it is like the Chief Minister said earlier, it was started years ago where you got the unions, the employer, Government, all around the table and we 1340 went to the GUS scheme – the Government Unified Scheme. That was an achievement in itself, as a paying member of a trade union … to get those people round the table to negotiate things was an achievement. And the information we were given at the time was the best that it could be. I am a little concerned about saying that we need to take our time. As we take time, the issue 1345 goes on longer and the funding issue is never addressed and that is why … and I gave some praise to Minister Shimmin for having those debates nearly two or three months ago over at the Museum, where the majority of this House, and another place, attended. We have had several meetings and the most recent one was where the Chief Minister had us all in and we talked about the issue. 1350 What we need to do, Members, here today, is to not hide those issues – talk to the Members, talk to the Ministers, their doors are always open; and we can work on this together. But what I have got to remind this particular House too, for those people who have enjoyed a commitment that we have given as a Government, previously – and as a House here, today … and the legacy funding issue is an issue because our population is surviving and we are living longer, and that is 1355 an issue for us in health, too. But isn’t that great? But we give them commitments and our previous generations in previous Houses have given those commitments. But what we need to do, too – and then I will finally sit down on this – is not frighten the next generation which is coming along. There is always going to be an issue. In my time when I was in the construction industry … I had left school at 16, I never thought 1360 about pensions and never thought about anything – never thought about homes. We need to

______1045 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

get the next generation into talking about what they need to do for the future. One of the major issues is you need to establish yourself with a home, and look to getting yourself in a pension which will give you something in the future when things go wrong; and hopefully the state will not take it all off us when we get to the other end. 1365 And what I would say to Hon. Members here today is, work together; there is a plan to work together – and that is with the public as well. The public out there are looking for answers – and we cannot give them all the answers because we do not know them. We have had actuaries giving us documentation, we have had our heads filled with reports full of things. The world is a finicky place and when things happen in the world we have to react; and we have to react to 1370 this. Members, get together, work on it.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

1375 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I find myself in the unusual position of strongly supporting the comments just made by the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk. I think his phrase, ‘let’s not keep frightening people’ is really quite important. Yes, this is an important issue; yes, it is one of the biggest issues that we will ever face in this parliament. But it is not an insurmountable issue, it is 1380 one that we can address. I think we do sometimes get too involved in our own little affairs here and forget the impression that we then create out in the public. I think there is a lot of disillusionment out in the public at the moment. There is very little hope because we keep talking about these very scary issues and, again, I think we make it sound as though there are no obvious answers. 1385 We have heard from Hans Christian Andersen – and I am not sure whether the Brothers Grimm may be appropriate, but I am quite taken by Aesop. I am not entirely sure that The Emperor’s New Clothes was a fair or appropriate description. People may consider as to how well clothed the Emperor is – perhaps the Emperor at least has some underwear – but certainly the suggestion that there are no clothes I think is unfair. 1390 Actually in relation to the Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas’s original reliance on fairy tales perhaps if we go to Aesop, The Boy Who Cried Wolf might be more appropriate. I am not suggesting for one moment this is an issue that we are crying wolf unnecessarily about, but if you remember in the story eventually the little boy was right and the wolf came – and people were ignoring the boy because the boy was always crying wolf. Sadly, I think, we all now know 1395 the wolf is coming but we are running around in circles not being able to agree on what the solution should be. There has been a lot of talk about there not being enough information and I would agree perhaps we could do more; we do need to provide more information. But I strongly suspect that once we have all the information we will not be in that much of a stronger position – and this is 1400 the issue where I think the Hon. Member for Ramsey was a little sensitive about some comments that were made in relation to backbenchers delaying decisions. I think the issue there is, as much as anything, that the amendment that was being proposed by backbenchers was going to delay the decision because it was effectively putting off making decisions until after the election. 1405 What we are aware of is that the people who work for Government are living in an extraordinarily uncertain world. There are significantly fewer of them, so we talk about a need for more information and we are expecting fewer and fewer people to provide that information; and at the same time we are leaving them in a degree of uncertainty as to what their future employment prospects are going to look like – will they have a job? If they do have a job, will 1410 they have any sort of a pension associated with it? How much are they going to be paid? We are relying on civil servants to provide us with this information and we are leaving them in a huge amount of doubt and uncertainty as to their future.

______1046 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

So let’s get back to the motion which I think everyone supports, and I would agree that perhaps the medium-term financial strategy was a little light on detail. That is not to say that 1415 there is not detail; and that is not to say that Council of Ministers has not considered in some detail how we could make further savings across Government and how indeed we could continue to grow the economy. But I think there were a few issues in relation to releasing that sort of information. It is blatantly obvious to the current Council of Ministers that there will be a new Council of Ministers in about six or seven months’ time. So the Council of Ministers has an 1420 idea about the areas that it may wish to look at to deliver savings, but the Council of Ministers might have a totally different approach. As I said, we have lots of uncertainty and doubt amongst our staff as it is. So if we say, ‘Right, over the next five years these are the areas that we think we are going to be looking to make savings in’ – and the staff in those particular areas will start becoming very uncertain and 1425 doubtful over their futures. Then a new Council of Ministers comes in and says, ‘Actually, no, that is the wrong place; we want to go somewhere else to look for the savings.’ We are adding to that level of uncertainty and doubt that is out there. But there are obvious areas and it may be that actually the doubt and uncertainty is resolved by bringing that level of clarity. I do hope the next Council of Ministers is very clear, very early on, about when the savings are going to be 1430 made and will help everybody who works for Government to understand what the plan is – and allow them to feel as though there is some degree of surety and security working for Government in the future. The other issue I think that was raised was in relation to the payouts. The payouts, of course, are happening because of that level of uncertainty and doubt. People are running for the doors, 1435 and the more time we spend on finally reaching an agreement that stops the uncertainty, the more likely that people will continue to run for the doors. And if we tighten the screws down really hard on public sector pensions, to the extent that we then cannot recruit the staff to fill all the key roles across Government, we then have to increase the salary bill to attract the people in. In which case, the saving that we make on pensions, because we have to be seen to be tough 1440 on public sector pensions, is then just transferred on to the salaries bill. So I think we have to be enormously careful. Yes, more information will allow for much better informed debate, but I strongly suspect that when it comes to it we will still not be quite sure whether closing the pension scheme to new entrants, whether a final salary pension is the right way, whether a career average is the right 1445 way. There will still be doubt, even when you have all the information, because there are a whole load of uncertainties out there and those uncertainties are unlikely to go away. So, yes, fully support the motion. I think it is probably useful to get more information in relation to the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, and I look forward to the continuing debate.

1450 The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There has been some very good input this morning. I just put a bit of reality into the hopes that this will be put before Tynwald in June. I think we have got another four weeks of 1455 consultation with Members regarding the pensions and I think, on my recollection, the Item has to be on the Order Paper in two weeks’ time for June, so to be realistic and to the public out there, I very much doubt that this will actually be on the Order Paper for June. If we go back to the discussions when GUS was talked about, there was a lot of talk then about ending the final salary pension scheme. I was looking at the Institute of Fiscal Studies and 1460 they were going on about career average, and they have implemented this in parts of the UK, and their comment is:

The new structure for public service pensions has considerable advantages over the previous system. The move to a career average basis is a sensible change; the previous final salary pension schemes were disproportionately beneficial to long-stayers who received pay increases towards the end of their career. For example, it is unclear why a teacher who subsequently goes on

______1047 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

to become a headteacher should receive a more generous pension for the years in which they are working as a teacher than a teacher who does not subsequently become a headteacher.

And yet, First Actuarial have ruled out a career average. Now, I believe that a career average is fairer to those people who actually contribute and fairer to the public. It may mean that they have to review the accrual rate for a career average, but I do not think that has been done under 1465 the current system. The other comment that I get back from some public servants is that the new scheme is not equal to everybody, in a number of sectors it is more costly to the taxpayer to fund, and I think one of the areas that they are saying is if you are going to do it let’s be fair across all the sectors instead of being more beneficial to some. 1470 We have got a system where, what concerns me is, that if we do not get this right there will be a lack of trust. Because if we have to come back again in three years’ time and then revalue it and say, ‘You are now going to have to pay some more’, there is going to be a lack of trust. I think some of the public servants that I have spoken to have said, ‘We would rather find out that we pay a bit more now and give a bit more longevity in towards our pension scheme, rather 1475 than come back later on and be asked for another 2% then; so spread out the cost over a longer period.’ Plus they want to know that there will be a pension scheme there all the way through, it will not be fair to those people who pay in and there is possibly going to be nothing there. I can remember during my father’s time that they changed the National Insurance Scheme and those people who had paid in suddenly had to start paying again because there was not 1480 anything left, and I think that is where we have got to be careful on this. Let’s make sure it is sustainable and give a little bit more certainty, it is probably going to be the biggest issue for the next five years and more, to try and see if we can get this right.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Peel. 1485 Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, again, I just want to congratulate … I know there has been a few for the Member of Douglas East, and the Member for Douglas West about bringing this issue, and I think I want to get back to the motion, and that is really what brings me to me feet. 1490 In essence, what we are trying to do – and while we have had a lot of information, again I thank the Member for Douglas West, John Shimmin, and the PSPA for all of the information – what they have not done is they have not painted pictures. So we do not have a picture of what does it look like, economically, in the macro-economic sense, if we close the scheme? What does it look like if we close it to new members? What does it look like if we have a mirror scheme? 1495 Now, that is a slightly different piece of work, and that actually gets to the heart of what will actually happen. Will doctors leave? Will teachers leave in one of those different scenarios? I think the Member for Douglas West hit the nail on the head in many of the comments he made. What I do really think that perhaps has been missed, and needs to be explained better, is the cost envelope. I think that that has not been explained as well as … there is more 1500 information, because in essence … This is why also we need to be brought up to speed, perhaps to contain my own misunderstanding, but the way I understand the cost envelope is that it is reviewed every three years, so what that means is in effect your annual rate that you get can change. What that in effect means is that rather than being a defined benefit scheme, which is what we have at the moment, it actually will change potentially what people will actually get at 1505 the end, and it becomes more like a defined contribution scheme. So the actual difference between the schemes is not so great. So I think we need better explanation of the cost envelope and how that works. Because what we are saying by the cost envelope is that if you pay, and for the Government or we pay 22.5% in effect, per year, the employees at the end will get that back as pension, we need to explain that better. 1510 The other things though: there is perhaps a little too much faith, in my opinion, I would like to see these in the scenarios regarding what the cost envelope can achieve and I do think we ______1048 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

need to look at career average as an equity point of view. Guernsey had a higher fixed limit to pensions and I think that is a very valid point. I do think there is growing disquiet that people can take a lump sum and then work in the very same department after they have taken a pension, so 1515 there are very deep concerns and I would like to see consideration and I do think we have time, provided we get the information out there. The other key thing is that I think we must remember, we must not burden ourselves and burden this House with too much in the sense of we cannot solve the whole thing for 40 years. What we perhaps need is an understanding of what milestones we need in the future to actually 1520 say where we go to review it, what we need to do to try and say that we are going to solve it. I think if you try and frame it in those terms it is going to be almost impossible. We will not solve it now; we need to think of those milestones. The other key issue that is fundamental, and the Members for Michael and East Douglas have framed it properly, is the fact that, in essence, it is still unfunded. So we are dealing with cash 1525 flow, but it is an unfunded scheme. We need to have in those scenarios how do we get an element of funding? Why do you need an element of funding, ultimately? Because ultimately you have to deal with the cash flow somehow, you will have peaks and troughs. Our state pension scheme has a pot of money that will deal with it; a public sector pension does not. We also have a one size fits all, which is great in one sense, but in other instances gives us problems, 1530 because in dealing with the police we are also dealing with doctors – so we may need to have a bit more flexibility in our pension scheme. Finally, let us not forget that there are people out there who do not have a Government pension that are relying now, increasingly more, on money purchase, and we need to deal with that problem. Because I very much feel that when they come to pensions, and when they come 1535 to draw their pensions, they will not have the money they are expecting. Everybody is assuming the money purchase scheme is a single bullet; it is a single bullet for the companies because it removes their liability and uncertainty, and companies cannot have uncertainty of how much they have put in each year. But the problem is it is not a silver bullet, and when they come to have to get an annuity or whatever, if we do not produce flexibility, the problem then comes 1540 that they will not have the pension, they will not be able to … and then in those circumstances the state may need to come in. And bearing in mind, many people do not even have a pension at all, so there are other issues we need to look at. With that I have finished, but I just want to get the essence of what the Member for Douglas East is saying here: it is not saying reproduce the same information; it is saying paint the 1545 economic picture of each of those options. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Two Members: Hear, hear.

1550 The Speaker: I call on the mover to reply, Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank my seconder and for all the contributions this morning in what has been a sober discussion, and to some extent, to a degree, a catharsis as well – we needed to have this 1555 discussion. From the comments made, I think there is going to be a general consensus view that this motion can be supported, as it should be. In fact, as I said at the beginning of my comments, it was a response to the Chief Minister’s desire to give space for more information. But what I want to try and do in my closing remarks is try to help, for Hansard if you like, to address what 1560 that information is that we are talking about. It is not information in isolation about pensions, because you cannot deal with the pension issue in isolation. A number of Members have touched on this point. What our responsibility is now, and for those who have ambitions to be here next October, is to face a colossal task which

______1049 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

is to balance the books, to deliver very good services, to pay a fair and sustainable public sector 1565 pension against a backdrop of a society, a Government and a jurisdiction which is determined to live within the context of low taxation. It really is a hell of a challenge that we have got. One of the big issues that the new House will face: you feel it and hear it now in the questions that are coming out, and the response in particular from the Minister for Health and Social Care, which is, ‘I can do this or I can do that, but I have these restraints.’ That is now! We 1570 have these huge issues growing about the growing elderly population and the demands there. So I do not criticise the Medium-Term Financial Strategy. If you recall from the Budget debate, I was actually very supportive and welcomed the Treasury Minister’s determination to bring this in. Now we need to build and build upon this, because what we have – what we have been presented with, linked to the proposals put forward by the Minister for Policy and Reform 1575 for the Vice-Chairman of PSPA – effectively is a recognition of the cost profile that we are going to see in the coming years, which is quite specific, but on the other hand just very simple, very crude outlines of both our revenue and our cost. The sort of thing we really need to see is how is the Department of Health and Social Care, in the next five, six, seven years, actually going to face up to those challenges. These are the things that we have got to lock in to our discussions, 1580 because they will inform how much we can afford to spend on public sector pensions. Can I put it to Hon. Members, Mr Speaker, that we are in danger here again of doing what we have consistently done now ad nauseam, and that is trying to deal with things in isolation, in silos; you cannot do it. You absolutely cannot decide that you are going to spend x, y or z on pensions if you do not know what your costs are going to be, or even an outline of those costs, 1585 and we do not have them. And so we have to have openness, honesty, not information sitting privately within Departments, but to collate it. And this is why I am so passionate about this concept of socio-economic modelling, which we just simply do not seem to want to grasp. Whether it is us in here, or whether it is our chief officers who cannot do it or do not want to do it, I do not know. Maybe it is a combination of 1590 both. But that is what we have got to deal with, because that will then inform and assist all the Members in the future to achieve sensible solutions as to what it is that we can afford in terms of sustainable public sector pensions. We want to pay public sector staff the maximum we can, but we cannot commit to that at the same time as saying, ‘Well actually, we do not know what the demands on health and the 1595 elderly care are going to be.’ You cannot do that; that is irresponsible! We absolutely cannot do it. The Chief Minister, not so long ago, said, ‘Look, we are not going to stop work because the election is coming, we are going to keep going.’ Well let’s just do exactly that, right the way through, and then on into the next House. Because those of us who end up back in here in 1600 October have some mountains to climb, so let’s keep working away at holistic information and making sure that we understand the context much better that we wish to set the pensions debate into. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

1605 The Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is that set out at Item 4 on the Order Paper, in the name of Mr Robertshaw. I put the question: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. (Mr Cannan: Divide.) I have not said anything yet! (Several Members: Ooh!) Division called. (Interjections)

Electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft None Mr Bell Mr Boot Mr Cannan ______1050 K133 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 3rd MAY 2016

Mr Cregeen Mr Gawne Mr Hall Mr Harmer Mr Houghton Mr Joughin Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Quirk Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Singer Mr Skelly Mr Teare The Speaker Mr Thomas Mr Watterson

1610 The Speaker: Hon. Members, 23 votes for, none against. The motion carries unanimously. Hon. Members, if I may venture a view from the Chair, I think Hon. Members are to be congratulated on an excellent debate, (A Member: Hear, hear.) of very high quality, and one of the best debates to have been heard in this House for some time. With that Hon. Members, I declare the House adjourned and we shall resume at our next 1615 sitting, Tuesday 10th May in this Chamber.

The House adjourned at 12.18 p.m.

______1051 K133