Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. ;74 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF V.TYNWAIDI COURT 2 r4Q Douglas, Tue,sfliiy 6 October 1990 at 16.30 a.a.
Present: The President of Tynwald (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, OBE). In the Council: The Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Noel Debroy Jones), the Attorney- General (Mr. T:W. Cain, QC), Mr. R.J.G. Anderson, Mr. B. Barton, Hon. A.A. Catlin, Mr. E.C. Irving, CBE, Hon. E.G. Lowey, His Honour A.C. Luft, CBE, Messrs. W.K. Quirk and J.N. Radcliffe, with Mr. T.A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council.
In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. G.V.H. Kneale, CBE) (Douglas West); Hon. A.R. Bell and Brig. N.A. Butler, CBE (Ramsey); Mr. R.E. Quine (Ayre); Mr. J.D.Q. Cannan (Michael); Mrs. H. Hannan (Peel); Mr. W.A. Gilbey (Glenfaba); Dr. E.J. Mann (Garff); Hon. D. North (Middle); Messrs. P. Karran, R.C. Leventhorpe and L.R. Cretney (Onchan); Hon. B. May. and Mrs. J. Delaney (Douglas North); Mr. D.C. Cretney (Douglas South); Messrs. D.F.K. Delaney and P.W. Kermode (Douglas East); Hon. J.C. Cain (Douglas West); Hon. J.A. Brown (Castletown); Hon. D.J. Gelling (Malew and Santon); Hon. M.R. Walker, Dr. J.R. Orme and Mr. J. Corrin (Rushen); with Prof. T. St.J. N. Bates, Clerk of Tynwald.
The Lord Bishop took the prayers. io
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NEW SPEAKER
The President: Hon. members, it is pleasing that among my first responsibilities in this setting is that of welcoming the newly elected Speaker of the House of Keys, Mr. Victor Kneale. Mr. Speaker, sir, may I congratulate you personally, and on behalf of Tynwald, on your election to the ancient office you now hold. It is not trite, hon. members, to say that no member who has had experience of the hon. gentleman, either as a backbencher but particularly as a minister in his last office, would deny that he has served the Keys and Tynwald, indeed the Island, very well indeed throughout the 28 years he has held office. I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that e) under your Speakership the democratic rights of those who directly represent the Manx people will be zealously safeguarded, that the parliamentary responsibility
Congratulations to the New Speaker T2 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 and tradition, which indeed we share, will grow in strength under your guardianship and, hon. members, I would ask you to recall that the role of Speaker has been described as that of the lynch pin of the chariot. May you enjoy good health to discharge the responsibility entrusted to you in the days that lie ahead, Mr. Speaker, and may the chariot of Manx democracy maintain its momentum in the interests of the common weal.
Mr. Kneale: Thank you, Mr. President, for those kind words. Thank you.
WELCOME TO DR. E. J. MANN
The President: Hon. members, on a morning of welcomes it is appropriate that I welcome, on behalf of Tynwald, my successor in the Garff constituency, Dr. Edgar Mann. No stranger to Tynwald, having represented the constituency from 1976 to 1985, I am sure his knowledge of our proceedings, his parliamentary expertise, will serve to enhance our debates again and will prove of benefit to Garff and the Island generally. Welcome back, Dr. Mann.
Members: Hear, hear.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The President: Now, we have apologies for absence from the hon. member, Mr. Duggan, who is unfortunately ill.
PAPERS LAID BEFORE THE COURT
The President: I call upon the Clerk to lay papers.
The Clerk: I lay before the Court: Policy Report 1990.
Customs and Excise Acts (Application) Act 1975 - Export of Goods (Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions) (Application) Order 1990. House Repair and Modernisation - House Repair and Modernisation Scheme 1990. Property Repair and Modernisation (Conservation Areas) Scheme 1990. Financial Supervision Act 1988 - Financial Supervision (Restricted Schemes) (Exemption) Order 1990.
Welcome to Dr. E.J. Mann Apologies for Absence Papers laid before the Court TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T3
Social Security - Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1990. Social Security Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1990. Supplementary Benefit (Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1990. Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 7) Order 1990. Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 8) Order 1990.
Control of Employment Act 1975 - Control of Employment (Amendment) Regulations 1990.
Tenancy of Business Premises Acts 1971 and 1975 - Tenancy of Business Premises Order 1990.
Merchant Shipping - Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations 1990. Fishing Vessels (Survey and Inspection) (Fees) Regulations 1990.
Registration Council of Builders and Workmen - Scheme for the Certification of Craftsmen 1990.
Constitution (Executive Council) Act 1984 - Ministers' Titles (Amendment) Order 1990.
Banking Acts 1975 to 1986 - Banking Act (Exemptions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1990. Bankruptcy Act 1988 - Bankruptcy (Designation of Relevant Countries Etc.) Order 1990.
Town and Country Planning Act 1981 (Special Inquiry) — Planning application for approval in principle for the provision of an 18-hole golf course at Langness, Derbyhaven, Malew - Inspector's report and letter of decision. Coast Erosion Policy - Report to Executive Council by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Report of the Isle of Man Delegation to the Islands Commission of the Conference of the Peripheral Maritime Regions of the EEC 1990.
Wild Birds Protection Act 1932 - Licences issued by His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor in 1989. Antarctica - Antarctic Treaty Act 1967 (Isle of Man) (Variation) Order 1990.
European Communities - Applicable European Communities Legislation for June, July and August 1990. Papers laid before the Court T4 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Isle of Man Post Office Authority - Isle of Man Post Office Authority (Inland Post) (Amendment) Regulations 1990.
Appointed Day Orders - Road Traffic Act 1985 (Appointed Day ) (No. 2) Order 1990. Road Traffic Act 1985 (Appointed Day) (No. 3) Order 1990. NatWest International Trust Corporation (Isle of Man) Act 1990 (Appointed Day) Order 1990.
Annual Report - Manx Electricity Authority's Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31st March 1990.
International Agreements — 1st April 1990 to 30th June 1990 - The Isle of Man Government has requested that the following international agreements be extended to the Isle of Man:
Bilateral agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden concerning the restraint and confiscation of the proceeds of crime.
European Convention on Asylum which established which European Community member state should take the lead in deciding an application for political asylum from third country nationals where two or more member states were involved.
Bilateral agreements between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Mexico and Malaysia concerning mutual assistance in relation to drug trafficking.
Vienna Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
McKINNEY v SJP LIMITED — STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The President: Hon. members, at this stage of our proceedings I wish to draw your attention to aspects of the proceedings in the case of McKinney v. SJP Limited and the Department of Local Government and the Environment, which was before the High Court in Douglas last week and, I understand, adjourned. The Clerk Assistant of Tynwald, in his capacity as Clerk to the Public Accounts Committee of this Court, was served with a witness summons within the precincts of Tynwald which required him to produce to the High Court a document obtained by the committee from the Department of Local Government and the Environment, and in response to the summons the Clerk Assistant indicated to the counsel for the plaintiffs that the document was subject to parliamentary privilege and could not
McKinney v SJP Limited — Statement by the President TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 15 be produced without the leave of Tynwald, and that an officer of the Court could not give evidence as to the proceedings of Tynwald or a committee of Tynwald without leave of the Court. He was then formally advised by an employee of the advocates appearing for the plaintiffs that consideration would be given to asking for a presentment requiring his presence. It has been reported in the Press that during proceedings in a case before the High Court last week, counsels for the plaintiffs suggested that the response of the Clerk Assistant of Tynwald was an aspect of — and I quote — 'a total cover-up'. The facts which I have outlined appear to reveal a number of prima facie contempts of Tynwald and, indeed, the Clerk of Tynwald had instructed Her Majesty's Attorney-General to seek leave to appear for the Department of the Clerk of Tynwald in the case before it was adjourned. It is, hon. members, my belief that I have the support of the Court in stressing the importance of preserving the established privileges of this Court and, in expressing my hope that an early opportunity will be found, to make a public withdrawal of the unfounded allegation against one of its officers. A further matter of privilege has arisen from the same litigation, hon. members. The hon. member for Douglas, Mr. Delaney, was served with a witness summons to appear as a member of Tynwald and, as a member of this Court, he could not be compelled to give evidence in respect of proceedings in Tynwald without obtaining the permission of Tynwald. I understand that under Standing Order 54 (1) he wishes to seek the leave of Tynwald to give such evidence should he be served with a witness summons at a later date. I call upon the hon. member for Douglas East to make such an appeal to the Court.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. President, together with other members of this Court, as outlined by you, I have been served with a summons and probably will be called to give evidence in this civil action. Mr. President, I wish to forgo my privilege of this House and this Court, sir, and I ask leave of the Court to allow me to give evidence where interests of the general public may be in order as this is a claim against the general public through the department.
The President: Is the House prepared to give that leave? (It was agreed.) Thank you, hon. members.
VILLIERS HOTEL SITE — GOVERNMENT ACTION — QUESTION BY MR. KERMODE
The President: We now proceed, hon. members, to questions and I call upon the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr. Kermode, to ask question 1.
Mr. Kermode: Mr. President, I beg to ask the Chief Minister:
What action will Government be taking in respect of the deterioration of the Villiers site, the gateway to the Isle of Man?
The President: The Chief Minister to reply.
Villiers Hotel Site — Government Action — Question by Mr. Kermode T6 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Mr. Walker: Mr. President, the condition of buildings adjacent to the public highway is a matter for the relevant local authority. The condition of the Villiers is therefore an issue to be addressed by the Douglas Corporation rather than Government in the first instance.
Mr. Kermode: A supplementary, Mr. President. Does the Chief Minister then say that Government must forgo its responsibility? As already this Government is spending many millions of pounds on tourism, this is a prime tourist area and we have got to put up with buildings of this nature because we as a Government are being seen not to care about the situation and, furthermore, statements by him in the Press and by Mr. Brown, the Minister for the LGE — does he feel that it was necessary to make such statements as 'Government must not be seen to bully private developers who leave sites in this condition' when they are making demands upon this Government which are not practical?
Mr. Walker: Mr President, I am not avoiding any responsibility at all. What I am saying is, the responsibility is fairly and squarely at the doors of the local authority in this particular issue. Mr. President, our legislation says so and if local authorities are to have a future and are to function in this Island — and I believe they should do — then they have to be left to get on with their responsibilities. Mr. President, as far as statements to the Press are concerned, if I am asked a question by a member of the Press then I should be able to respond, which I did in the particular instance referred to by the hon. member.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. President, a supplementary to the Chief Minister. Would the Chief Minister, understanding the concern of the hon. member and the people who reside in Douglas and round the Island generally about this site, try to get a meeting called between the departments concerned and Douglas Corporation, particularly in light of the passing in this Court of the 1990 Public Health Bill under Clause 1, which is quite specific in relation to derelict property.
Mr. Walker: Mr. President, under Section 14 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984, the local authority are responsible to serve orders on owners of property that is unsightly, and I would suggest, Mr. President, that the Villiers Hotel is unsightly, and the Corporation, if they are concerned, as the relevant local authority ought to be taking action. I can agree with the comments made by the hon. member, Mr. Delaney, and the comments made by the hon. member, Mr. Kermode, that the Villiers Hotel is falling into a state of dereliction and something ought to be done about it. What I am saying, Mr. President, is it is the Corporation that ought to be doing it, sir.
Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Mr. President. The answer given by the Chief Minister, Mr. President — will he then having seen his concern, express the concern that we all hold, Mr. President... Will he then, particularly under the Bill I have referred to which supersedes the Bill he has referred to somewhat, take steps through the Minister for Local Government and the Tourist Minister who is being asked for public funds, to try and get a meeting to resolve this for everyone's benefit?
Villiers Hotel Site — Government Action — Question by Mr. Kermode TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T7
Mr. Walker: I think, Mr. President, the matter of public funds.that have been requested and so on is a matter entirely different to that which is the content of the question. We are talking about the dereliction and the unsightliness of the property and that is what I have addressed my comments to. Obviously there is a concern with the Tourist Department that we know about, obviously there is a concern with the planners, but there is a planning approval on that site which will allow the developer to develop it in a way that is acceptable. Mr. President, I say once again, I am pleased to draw this matter to the attention of the Corporation. I would say, though, sir, that it is a pretty sad reflection if I have to do that and they are not aware of that responsibility, they are not aware of the unsightliness of the property, and if the hon. members representing the town of Douglas cannot do that very thing.
Mr. Gilbey: Mr. President, can I ask the hon. Chief Minister, is it not true that the Public Health Bill 1990 actually gives all the powers that are vested in local authorities also to the Department of Local Government, so they could exercise all the powers which the hon. Chief Minister is suggesting should be exercised by Douglas Corporation, and if he agrees that — which I think is correct — will he not accept that if Douglas Corporation fail to act in a reasonable time, the relevant department should? Furthermore, would he not agree that in these cases the Bill provides that the cost of any action that is necessary can be recovered from the owner of the property and, if necessary, either the local authority or the Government department can foreclose on the property for that purpose?
Mr. Walker: Mr. President, I would be wrong if I tried to quote or confirm, whatever, the contents of the Public Health Bill 1990, though I understand that the contents are as outlined by the hon. member, Mr. Gilbey. At the end of the day certainly a Government department could step in and fulfil the requirements of a local authority's responsibilities. I would suggest, Mr. President, that would be a pretty sad day for local authorities on this Island, and for those members in this Court who say they support local authorities who have said we do not want I to alter the structure because it is all hunky-dory out there and local authorities ought to be left to get on with their own business, I think, if Government are going to be asked to step in, then I say it is a sad day for local authorities and I hope, Mr. President, we do not have to get that far, but if needs be.
Mr. Kermode: A supplementary, Mr. President. Has the Chief Minister spoken to the developers of this site asking them what they intend to do in view of its deterioration, and if he has not, has his Minister for Tourism spoken to the developers and asked them what they intend to do with this site because of its deterioration?
The President: The question is out of order and has little relevance to the original matter.
Villiers Hotel Site — Government Action — Question by Mr. Kermode T8 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
PLANNING INQUIRIES — AVAILABILITY OF TRANSCRIPTS — QUESTION BY DR. ORME
The President: We proceed to question 2. I call upon the hon. member for Rushen, Dr. Orme.
Dr. Orme: I beg to ask the Chief Minister: 1 When will transcripts of public inquiries into planning matters be made available?
The President: Chief Minister.
Mr. Walker: Mr. President, it has never been considered necessary to make tape- recordings of public inquiries into planning matters, and consequently it has not been possible to make transcripts available. Following an enquiry from my hon. colleague, Dr. Orme, earlier this summer, the matter has been the subject of recent investigation and will be considered formally by the Council of Ministers in the very near future.
LANGNESS — PURCHASE FOR WILDLIFE PROTECTION — QUESTION BY MR. CORRIN
The President: Question 3. The hon. member for Rushen.
Mr. Corrin: Mr. President, I beg to ask the Chief Minister:
In view of the Planning Inspector's rejection of the proposed new golf course at Langness, have you considered the possibility of approaching the owners with a view to purchasing the site for the benefit of the nation and the protection of the flora and fauna?
The President: Chief Minister.
Mr. Walker: Mr. President, public acquisition of Langness has not been considered by the Council of Ministers. Public acquisition and maintenance of lands because of their scenic beauty or for the preservation of their natural aspect is, in the first instance, a matter for the Manx Museum and National Trust, and I would be expecting that body to be discussing this particular matter and making recommendations if they think it is worthwhile, sir.
Mr. Corrin: Mr. President, would the Chief Minister not agree that it would appear that monetary value has now overtaken the traditional ethos of the Island of 'live and let live' and that there are many people on this Island that are looking for his leadership to resolve and to take into public ownership sites of beauty which will not be allowed to be sold off as if they have no meaning to the people of this
Planning Inquiries — Availability of Transcripts — Question by Dr. Omre Langness — Purchase for Wildlife Protection — Question by Mr. Corrin TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T9
Island whatsoever?
Mr. Walker: I would just say, Mr. President, that there must be other ways in which sites of beauty and of interest and of enjoyment to the people of this Island can be preserved without taking them into public ownership. There are other ways, Mr. President, and I think that is all I have to say in response to the hon. member's question.
Mrs. Hannan: A supplementary, Mr. President. Could I ask the Chief Minister if he would support management agreements with the owners of this land, the Palace Group, under the Wildlife Act, to preserve the flora and fauna?
Mr. Walker: Mr. President, this is one of the provisions I was thinking about and that is something that should certainly be taken up by the relevant authorities after, Mr. President, the planning procedures have been completed, and at this stage they have not yet been completed.
ISLE OF MAN STEAM PACKET COMPANY LIMITED — INVESTIGATION OF INSIDER DEALING ALLEGATIONS — QUESTION BY MR. CANNAN
The President: Question 4. The hon. member for Michael.
Mr. Cannan: Mr. President, I beg to ask HM Attorney-General:
Have you, in your role as Director of Public Prosecutions, had the allegations made regarding insider dealing in the shares of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited investigated?
The President: Mr. Attorney.
The Attorney-General: Mr. President, no complaint has been made to me or to the Chief Constable with regard to any alleged insider dealing in the shares of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited, and I am not aware of any such allegations. If, however, the hon. member has any information with regard to any such alleged insider dealing, I would ask him to forward this information to me as soon as possible and I will then ask the police to make the appropriate enquiries.
Mr. Cannan: A supplementary, Mr. President. Is not the Attorney-General aware that Mr. Sherwood made allegations in a public document which were widely reported in the Press last June at the time of the take-over that certain directors, in his view, had purchased shares following a private meeting on the 7th May, as I recall, in London prior to the takeover announcement, and was not that sufficient notice to somebody somewhere that perhaps all was not well?
The Attorney-General: Mr. President, I am aware of some of the matters which
Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Limited — Investigation of Insider Dealing Allegations — Question by Mr. Cannan TIO TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 were discussed in the Press but I am afraid I have not a copy and I do not recall precisely the point which is being made by the hon. member. I repeat, if he has any information which he thinks should be investigated I would ask him to pass it to me as soon as possible.
SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED — PUBLICATION OF INSPECTORS' REPORT — QUESTION BY MR. CANNAN
The President: Question 5. The hon. member for Michael.
Mr. Cannan: I beg to ask HM Attorney-General:
What date is your next appearance in the High Court with regard to the release for general publication of the report of the Inspectors into the affairs of the Savings and Investment Bank Limited?
The President: Mr. Attorney.
The Attorney-General: Mr. President, the petition of the Treasury seeking the leave of the court to publish generally the report of the Inspectors into the affairs of Savings and Investment Bank Limited was adjourned on the 17th July 1990, to Monday the 29th October 1990 when the matter will be further considered by the court.
Mr. Cannan: Mr. President, a supplementary. Will the Attorney-General make representations to the Deemster to have the report of the inspectors released as soon as possible, because Executive Council are refusing to supply hon. members with the unabridged copies of all items relevant to the Savings and Investment Bank Limited and the minutes of Executive Council and Finance Board for the period November '76 to November '86 as requested in a Tynwald resolution last July?
The Attorney-General: Mr. President, the petition to the court is in fact mai by the Treasury and it is the Treasury's wish that the report of the inspectors be made public as soon as possible. That point has been made very strongly to the court and will be repeated, and I think the court is fully aware of the wishes of the Treasury in that respect. However, the court has had representations made to it by the prosecution service from England and it is up to the court to make a decision in relation to the application of the Treasury. The views of the Treasury have certainly been made known to the court and will be repeated very strongly.
BALLACARMEL HOLIDAY COTTAGES — QUESTION BY MR. QUINE
The President: Question 6. The hon. member for Ayre.
Savings and Investment Bank Limited — Publication of Inspectors' Report — Question by Mr. Cannan Ballacarmel Holiday Cottages — Question by Mr. Quine TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T11
Mr. Quine: Mr. President, I beg to ask the Minister for the Treasury:
With respect to the nine holiday cottages forming Phase 1 of the development at Ballacarmel, Maughold —
(1) When and under what circumstances and conditions did Government become owner and does it retain ownership?
(2) What sum or other benefit was paid or provided by Government?
(3) What sums have been expended by Government in maintenance and support?
(4) What revenue has accrued to Government?
(5) To what use have such cottages been put?
(6) Are such cottages habitable and usable and, if not, what steps and expenditure are necessary to render them so?
The President: Minister for the Treasury.
Mr. Gelling: Mr. President, six questions in all and I will take them, if I can, in order except for the last two. Question 1 — the circumstances under which Government became owner of the first phase of the holiday cottage development at Ballacarmel, as 1 am confident the hon. member for Ayre can recall, were exhaustibly examined by the Select Committee of Tynwald on Ballacarmel. If I may, however, refresh hon. members' memories, the then Local Government Board advanced in July 1981 a loan of £189,279 over 20 years at 12 per cent. interest-free for the first three years for the construction of nine holiday cottages. The project was commercially unsuccessful and on the 1st November 1985, on the recommendation of Executive Council, Treasury accepted ownership of the site in exchange for extinguishing the debt. Turning to the second part of the question posed by the hon. member, I am unaware of any other sum or benefit paid or provided by Government in relation to this project. (3) — the sum of £3,790 has been expended by Treasury in the six years between the 1st April 1984 and the 31st March 1990. (4) — the cottages have remained vacant because, as the Select Committee commented at length, there has been a dispute between the adjoining landowner over site services and site boundaries. Accordingly, there has been no income accruing to Government over the years. On the 26th October 1988, Mr. President, Tynwald, in adopting the Select Committee's report agreed that — and I quote — 'The Minister of Home Affairs requests the Chief Constable to further investigate the matter to determine whether or not any criminal liability attaches to any of the parties involved.' Now, hon. members may recall the statement in Tynwald earlier this year by the Minister of Home Affairs when he said — and again I quote — 'The Attorney- General after careful deliberation has concluded that there is not sufficient evidence
Ballacarmel Holiday Cottages — Question by Mr. Quine 112 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 before him to warrant any charge or charges being laid against any individual.' Now, since that time, Treasury has entered into meaningful negotiations to resolve the dispute and will be submitting to the Council of Ministers a range of options available to bring this matter to a conclusion. So in summary, Mr. President, for questions (5) and (6), the cottages have not been used but the cottages could be used except that they could not pull the toilet chain.
Mr. Quine: Mr. President, can the minister explain to me what impediment to resolving this issue is a criminal investigation? There is no issue involving the right of ownership.
Mr. Gelling: Mr. President, the situation that we have at present, which we will be reporting to Executive Council on, is purely and simply the use of the Klargester system, and I think we have now resolved that there is a right for the use of the sewage plant but, in fact, we will have to agree and make an agreement with the landowner for that use. So it is the treatment works that is the problem area and this is something, as I have already stated, we are in meaningful discussions with the adjoining landowner and we certainly hope to be able to come up with a solution so that we can dispose of the properties and, therefore, have the income back into the Treasury which has been outstanding now for some six years.
Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Mr. President. The Minister of Finance will recall in the '88 period — 1988 — and 1990, when the legal investigation was dropped, that I indicated my hope that these cottages, after negotiations with the adjacent landowner, would be used for public use as was the policy of the Government of which you are a minister. Will you not indicate in Court that it will be a priority that these cottages, which are suitable, can be used for public housing purely by a change in the planning that was originally given as holiday cottages? Would the Minister of Finance give that indication, Mr. President, so that we can get, as he said, pulling the chain, and we can stop giving the impression this Government is going round the bend? (Laughter).
Mr. Gelling: Mr. President, I can only comment that these, I hope, will be available to be sold. Now, the condition on which they are sold, if they are to be used for public housing, will be against the original planning (Interruption) for the particular premises, and that is something I must confess Treasury have not at this time deliberated upon as to the change of use.
Mr. Quine: Mr. President, would the minister not agree that it is deplorable, particularly in the present housing crisis and particularly in view of the fact that there are endless demands for more money for tourism, that this matter has dragged on for five years? Has he considered compulsory purchase under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1984? And, if not, will he do so without further delay?
Mr. Gelling: Mr. President, 1 am sure that hon. members will recall that in April '87 this actually was brought to the Court that they should be sold and it was the hon. Court that at that time wished further investigation. I could not agree more
Ballacarmel Holiday Cottages — Question by Mr. Quine TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 113 with the hon. questioner that it is dreadful that we have got these houses lying empty, and I can assure the member that no-one will be wanting to get this sorted out more than I, but as far as compulsory purchase and the other options, as I have already said, Mr. President, we will be submitting a paper to Executive Council for their decision with the options available after the investigations that we have instigated.
Mr. Karran: Mr. President, a supplementary. Could the hon. Treasury Minister give us some sort of time period over this affair, as I think it is important that we get it resolved as soon as possible?
Mr. Gelling: Mr. President, I would certainly hope that in the next three months we will have the Ballacarmel situation sorted out.
RESERVE FUND — VALUE — QUESTION BY MR. CANNAN
The President: Thank you. The hon. member for Michael. Question 7.
Mr. Cannan: Mr. President, I beg to ask the Minister for the Treasury:
What was the value of the Reserve Fund as at 30th September 1990?
The President: Minister for the Treasury.
Mr. Gelling: Mr. President, hon. members, the value of the Reserve Fund on the Friday night of the 28th September 1990 was £50.4 million.
ELECTRICITY — WITHDRAWAL OF OFF-PEAK RATES — QUESTION BY MR. CANNAN
The President: Question 8. The hon. member for Michael.
Mr. Cannan: I beg to ask the Minister for Industry, sir:
Will you commence negotiations with the Manx Electricity Authority to reverse its decision to withdraw the facility of cheaper off-peak electricity for night storage heaters with effect frtom 31st March 1992?
The President: The Minister for Industry to reply.
Mr. May: Mr. President, I am able to inform the hon. member that, following discussions some weeks ago with the Manx Electricity Authority, I ascertained that no decision has been taken to withdraw the off-peak tariff for night storage heaters which is currently available to long-established users of this type of equipment. The situation is that the consumers concerned have been notified that the availability
Reserve Fund — Value — Question• by Mr. Cannan Electricity — Withdrawal of Off-Peak Rates — Question by Mr. Cannan T14 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 of this particular tariff is due to be reviewed at the end of March 1992 in accordance with an undertaking that was given to the Treasury some years ago. When the appropriate time comes, all the relevant factors will be taken into account, including the views of several members who have already expressed their views and approached me on this subject.
Mr. Cannan: Mr. President, will the minister be aware — I am sure he is - that the Manx Electricity Authority in a circular to those who had off-peak electricity sent out earlier this year, stated that as a result — and I quote — 'Reserve tariffs will continue to be available in the years ending 31st March 1991 and the 31st March 1992 only'? Will the minister therefore be aware that this has given particularly elderly people in reduced circumstances, very great cause for concern as to whether they will be able to have the benefit of reduced heating costs, or the benefit of their night storage heaters, which they were encouraged to install many years ago —
Mr. Delaney: That is right.
Mr. Cannan: — and which they cannot be certain — and, with respect, sir, your answer has not clarified that point — that these people cannot be certain that after March 1992 they will be able to continue, and will the minister agree that what is required today is a firm statement as to whether people with night storage heaters will have to go into a capital cost to introduce new heating systems during the coming summer months because they do not wish to be left after March 1992, on the 1st April 1992, having to pay the full tariff as quoted, sir, in the Manx Electricity circular?
Mr. May: Yes, Mr. President, I am aware of the letter that went out to consumers of this particular type of tariff and I can say that I have made my views on that particular letter known to the Manx Electricity Authority. I would say, in response to the hon. member's further question, Mr. President, that the setting of tariffs for electricity is a matter for determination between the authority and the Treasury in accordance with Section 12 of the Electricity Act 1984, it is not the responsibility of my department, and therefore it would be impossible for me to give any undertaking such as that sought by the hon. member, but I have no doubt, Mr. President, that the Department of Industry will use its best endeavours at the appropriate time to ensure that there is a fair outcome to this particular problem and I would further state, Mr. President, that I would confirm that, in response to the approach that I have already made to the Authority on this particular subject, where I have expressed the views that are held not only by the hon. member but also by a number of members of this hon. Court who have approached me on the subject, I would confirm, sir, that the Authority's reaction to the department's representation on this subject is entirely sympathetic.
Mr. Kermode: A supplementary, Mr. President. Can I ask the Minister for Industry, as he himself has expressed concern about the letter that has gone out and as I have also been approached by a number of elderly people who are concerned, will he not send another letter out and tell these people exactly what you have told us in Tynwald Court today?
Electricity — Withdrawal of Off-Peak Rates — Question by Mr. Cannan TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 115
The President: The minister to reply.
Mr. May: Mr. President, the letter may possibly have been worded in a better form. The truth of the matter is as I have outlined here within this Court this morning: the subject will be reviewed at the end of March 1992. This is part of the overall harmonisation of tariffs which we all know has to be effective by that date, but I would certainly further discuss the point raised by the hon. member with the Authority.
Mr. Cannan: Mr. President, I am sorry to persist, but will the minister ask the Electricity Authority to give an assurance, particularly to elderly people in reduced circumstances, as to whether or not there is a capital requirement for them to change their heating systems prior to March 1992? These things cannot be changed overnight, Mr. President, because (a) they will require funding, and secondly they will require to put in central heating, oil-fired gas or whatever prior to March 1992; otherwise, as I have said, Mr. President, from the 1st April 1992 they will suddenly be charged top-whack electricity.
Mr. President: Reply, sir?
Mr. May: Mr. President, as I have previously stated, this matter is for resolution between the Treasury (Mr. Delaney: That is right.) and the Authority, not between my department and the Authority and the hon. member, as a former Treasury Minister, should be well aware and acquainted with that particular fact, and it would be impossible for me at this particular point in time to give a categoric undertaking on the part of the Treasury and the Manx Electricity Authority. What I can say is that the Authority, Mr. President, are completely sympathetic with the views that have been expressed and have taken the points on board that have been made to them, and I am sure that all those points will be discussed at the appropriate time and that at the end of the day common sense and justice will prevail.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. President, in his reply to the hon. member for Michael the minister rightly indicated that it was not his fault for the tariff increases and the change, it was his colleague, the Minister of Finance. Will the minister now, with his sympathy, ask for sympathy from Executive Council, the Council of Ministers, including the Treasury Minister, to make sure that this matter is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, including the minister himself?
The President: Minister to reply.
Mr. May: I would merely point out, Mr. President, that the initial discussions with the Treasury took place some years ago prior to my colleague in fact taking office in that particular responsibility. We do not... None of us know what will happen after November next year and, as this is a matter that is for resolution in March of the following year, again it would be difficult, but certainly I am sure that not only the Authority but certainly my department and, I am quite sure, my hon. colleague, the Minister for the Treasury has taken the points on board and I have no doubt whatsoever that every individual member of this hon. Court has
Electricity — Withdrawal of Off-Peak Rates — Question by Mr. Cannan T16 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 their views on this subject and I am sure we are all exactly on the same channel as far as that goes.
Mr. President: It looks as if we are likely to hear them this morning too! (Laughter) Hon. member.
Mr. Kermode: Mr. President, as the Ministry for Industry has heard the concerns of members and he himself shares their concerns and has heard that my colleague has asked for him to have a meeting with the Minister for the Treasury and Executive Council, is he not aware that there are many elderly people who are concerned and cannot wait until 1992 for them to make a decision? It is because of their despair and concern that I am asking him, would he not consider an early meeting and and early decision and let this Government make the decision and not wait for the next Government, assuming he thinks he will not be elected next year? (Laughter)
Mr. May: The hon. member may speak for himself, Mr. President! (Laughter)
Mr. Delaney: It is not what it says in the Policy Document.
Mr. May: All one can say... I can understand the concern; what I would say is that there are several hundred consumers affected by this particular problem and these are, of course, the people who bought appliances from the former Douglas Corporation Electricity Board and the former Isle of Man Electricity Board. These obligations, in my book, should be honoured by the current Authority. That view has been expressed to the current Authority, that view has been taken on board by the current Authority, that view has been expressed publicly here this morning within this Court, and whilst I can understand people's concerns, I would say, sir, again — and I will reiterate my statement — that I cannot be emphatic this morning here but what I would say is that I feel quite confident that at the end of the day a fair and equitable solution will be found.
MANX ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY — REMOVAL OF AERIAL MASTS — QUESTION BY MRS. HANNAN
The President: Question 9. The hon. member for Peel.
Mrs. Hannan: Mr. President, I beg to ask the Minister for Industry:
Does the Manx Electricity Authority still use the radio masts at
(1) Peel Hill, Patrick (2) Mull Hill, Rushen
and when will they be removed?
The President: The Minister for Industry.
Manx Electricity Authority — Removal of Aerial Masts — Question by Mrs. Hannan TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T17
Mr. May: Thank you, Mr. President. I can confirm that the two masts identified in the hon. member's question are both still in use and are likely to be required for the foreseeable future. The MEA is thus unable to provide any definitive answer as to when they will be removed.
Mrs. Hannan: A supplementary, Mr. President. The inspector's report, which looked at overall radio communications within Mann, suggested that planning permission should not be granted for these two masts, so could I ask if this is being considered by the Manx Electricity Authority and could the Manx Electricity Authority not use the present police radio masts which are all round the Island?
The President: Reply, sir?
Mr. May: Mr. President, I think matters of planning should not be addressed to me but to my hon. colleague —
Mr. Delaney: It is your fault now!
Mr. May: — the Minister for Local Government and the Environment. As regards using the police masts, I would say, Mr. President, that the Authority's requirements are different than those of other users and, while it is sensible to make the maximum possible usage of common facilities, it is not feasible for those facilities to make adequate provision for all of the Authority's needs, and I would ask you to consider, hon. members, the fact that the Authority needs to have adequate radio communications in the most remote and outlying areas of the Island at all times, not only in the interests of ensuring continuity of supply, and I would remind hon. members of the problems that arose during the storm period of last winter when, indeed, no breakdown was left more than 24 hours before it was repaired, but I would also point out to the hon. member that there is the need for this clarity of communication in the interests of safety of the Authority's employees.
Mrs. Hannan: A supplementary, Mr. President. Is the Minister of Industry saying that police radios need not reach all parts but electricity must? Could I also sk the Minister of Industry, will he draw attention to the Manx Electricity Authority the report by the inspector in 1987 when planning permission was refused to these two sites? My understanding is, Mr. President, that more equipment is going in at Mull Hill at the moment and surely they should be looking at the other mast, which is just above Port St. Mary, in siting their new equipment.
The President: Reply, sir?
Mr. May: Again, Mr. President, matters of planning — and these masts have been erected for quite some considerable time, certainly long before I was ever involved in the issue — are not ones that I can specifically reply to. The fact of the matter is that the masts are in the location that they are and they have been, and still are, in use. When that further usage is not considered desirable, then would be an appropriate time to consider replacing or removing them.
Manx Electricity Authority — Removal of Aerial Masts — Question by Mrs. Hannan 118 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Mrs. Hannan: A further supplementary, Mr. President. Would it be possible for the Minister of Industry to supply to this hon. Court what these masts and housing are actually used for by the Manx Electricity Authority?
Mr. May: Mr. President, I have given a brief outline already of what these masts are actually used for by the Authority.
MANX ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY — COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FUEL AT PULROSE — QUESTION BY DR. ORME
The President: Thank you. Question 10. The hon. member for Rushen, Dr. Orme.
Dr. Orme: Mr. President, I beg to ask the Minister for Industry:
Has the Manx Electricity Authority investigated the cost-effectiveness of using a lower sulphur content fuel at Pulrose and, if so, what are its conclusions?
The President: The Minister for Industry.
Mr. May: Thank you, Mr. President. Hon. members will be aware that it was during a question relating to flue gas treatment for Pulrose power station which was posed by the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney, that Dr. Orme first suggested that I ask the MEA to consider the cost-effectiveness of utilising lower sulphur content fuel at Pulrose power station. In a letter addressed to all hon. members dated the 26th February 1990 which clarified the existing situation, I undertook to raise this matter with the Authority and have indeed done so. As a result of this, the Authority has conducted a series of investigations, in particular with diesel experts from the UK, and their conclusions are as follows: firstly, there are no generating authorities in the UK using A2, which is the lower sulphur content gas oil. The only information about the use of A2 gas oil is from small consumers who use diesel engines either intermittently or for standby purposes. There are times when lower sulphur content oils are made available by some oil companies, and the Authority is endeavouring constantly to improve the position. Their suppliers are aware that the Authority is seeking to purchase oil with lower sulphur content when price differentials make this possible. The MEA is following what is understood as the standard UK practice in the use of fuel oil for diesel generating plants, and the change to A2 gas oil would not only put the MEA out of step with every other Authority but it would also involve considerable cost implications to consumers, and if the Authority were to generate all of its electricity with distalate fuel, which has a sulphur content of 0.3 per cent. instead of the fuels currently in use, which have sulphur contents ranging between 1 per cent. and 3.5 per cent., the increase in cost at October 1990 prices would be £3 million per annum, and this figure would mean an additional 1.4 pence per kilowatt hour being imposed on the consumer, or a 15 to 20 per cent. increase in the unit charge of electricity. Therefore, the Authority is not contemplating any change in its practice at the present
Manx Electricity Authority — Cost-Effectiveness of Fuel at Pulrose — Question by Dr. Orme TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T19 time.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. President, in answering the question the minister indicated that the matter had been raised in a question I had previously asked. Will the minister also concur with me that during that time I referred to the need to have to do this under European legislation coming forward in this Island? Will the Minister, under the Bill I have referred to to the Chief Minister, the Act — this is the 1980 Public Health Bill — take note and bring back to the department he is responsible for that under Clause 1 and Clause 2 at this moment in time, his department, the power station, as I indicated in that question, could be guilty of offences under that section in section (f), 'any dust or effluent caused by way of trade processes being prejudicial to the health and a nuisance', and (g) any smoke emitted in such quantity or of such density content to be a nuisance', and under Clause 2 (b) requiring the execution of such works and the taking of such other steps as may be necessary for the purpose of the notice or anything that may be specified in that notice? Mr. President, will the minister, having realised why I asked the original question, go back to his board, the Electricity Authority, and tell them they had better put some funds to one side because they are going to have to carry out this work?
The President: Reply, sir?
Mr. May: Mr. President, I have not got the appropriate Act with me as the hon. member has —
Mr. Delaney: Here is a copy of it.
Mr. May: — but I take on board the point he makes. However, I would say, Mr. President, that current levels of emission from the power station are well within EEC requirements for sulphur dioxides and for suspended particulates, and this was evidenced in the interim report of the Environmental Working Group. Furthermore, the levels are within those that were determined by the public inquiry into the Pulrose power station planning application which specified that, whereas the chimney was designed to accommodate a sulphur content of 5 per cent. in the fuel, the Authority must not exceed 4 per cent. without first referring back to the Planning Committee, and I can confirm to the hon. member that the Authority do not exceed 4 per cent. What I would say, Mr. President — it is easy to stand in this hon. Court and say that this must be done and that must be done; the point is that any action taken in this particular field will have quite severe cost implications which will and have to be of necessity borne by the consumer. As I have previously stated on several occasions, to me the priority is in establishing new generating capacity that is environmentally acceptable and in which we can get rid of the older plant which is totally non-acceptable and which is causing the bulk of the problems emanating from Pulrose power station.
Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Mr. President. The minister is well aware that it has been indicated to the departments concerned that new plant and the old plant will not be taken off stream because of the necessity for the power being generated. He is also aware that any new generation put into those flues will increase the sulphur
Manx Electricity Authority — Cost-Effectiveness of Fuel at Pulrose — Question by Dr. Orme T20 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 and the dioxin contents. Will the minister realise, as this member does, the cost which might have to be put in and start making plans, because he is aware that since the planning application went in European rules and regulations have changed? Not our fault, it is all from being part of the club.
Mr. May: Mr. President, I am aware of the points made by the hon. member, and indeed the Authority themselves are totally aware of the points made by the hon. member and, indeed, those particular points figure very, very prominently within the Authority's current deliberations as to the future as regards generation in the Isle of Man, and all of these factors will be taken into account when ultimately a plan is presented for approval.
Mr. Delaney: Thank you.
Dr. Orme: Mr. President, the member, in replying, has indicated that the MEA has established the costs of this measure; has his department looked at the benefits?
Mr. May: Mr. President, I have no doubt that there are benefits. I would question just how big those benefits may be and I would say to the hon. member, who must surely be aware that as a direct consequence of the current crisis in the Gulf, electricity prices will be increased in the near future by some 10 to 15 per cent., and to exacerbate this fact, Mr. President, by the imposition of a further charge which may bring some marginal environmental benefit I would say would place an intolerable burden on the consumer, many of whom are people on fixed income who are not placed and in a position to be able to stand it.
Mr. Delaney: It should be underwritten, the electricity.
Dr. Orme: A further supplementary, Mr. President, if I might. Has the Government considered asking those people most affected whether they would consider that the cost might justify the benefit?
Mr. May: I am sure, Mr. President, that if one was to pick a small group of individuals one could get an answer to a question if it was posed in a certain way. Equally, if one picked another group of individuals one could get an entirely different I answer. What we have to look at is the effect on an Island-wide situation and the effects on all the Manx consumers.
Mrs. Hannan: A supplementary, Mr. President. Maybe the Minister for the Industry would like to do a poll? (Interruption and laughter)
Mr. May: Would the hon. member like it on Peel Hill, Mr. President?
PENSION INCREASES — PENSIONERS IN RESIDENTIAL HOMES — QUESTION BY MR. KERMODE
The President: I think, hon. members, we are beginning to wander. Question
Pension Increases — Pensioners in Residential Homes — Question by Mr. Kermode TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T21
11. The hon. member for Douglas East.
Mr. Kermode: I beg to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security:
Whereas pensioners over 75 in the Isle of Man have been given an increase of £7.50 on their pensions, why have pensioners in residential homes had this amount deducted from their supplementary pensions?
The President: The Minister for Health and Social Security.
Mr. Cain: President, a person's requirements or needs for supplementary 1\4?''`.13 benefit purposes are' normally assessed in three distinct parts: there are the normal requirements relating to day-to-day living such as food, there are housing requirements for rent and rates and issues like that, and there are additional requirements covering special circumstances. Now, in the case of additional requirements, examples of the special -circumstances include the need for extra heating, special diets, mobility needs and an allOwance for age. The allowance for age was previously £2 per week from the age of 80, but from the 1st October 1990 it was changed to £7.50 payable from the age of 75. None of the additional requirements for special circumstances is included in the assessment of supplementary benefit for a person in a residential home because the department recognise'Slhat residence in a home is, of itself, a very special circumstance for which very special rates — and this is very important, this particular point — very special rates of supplementary benefit apply which are considerably in excess of the normal rates of supplementary benefit. There is nothing new in this; it is a long-established arrangement. The special rates of supplementary benefit are determined by the department having regard to local charging practices on the Isle of Man. The rates, which include a personal allowance for the claimant or pensioner, are reviewed annually. Hon. members will recall, Mr. President, that the Retirement Pension Premium Scheme 1990, which provided premiums of up to £7.50 for retirement pensioners aged 75 from the 1st October 1990, was approved at the July sitting of Tynwald, together with amendments to Supplementary Benefit Regulations, which changed the additional requirement for age from £2 payable from the age of 80 to £7.50 payable from the age of 75. Now I mention this, Mr. President, because the papers which were circulated to hon. members by my department in connection with these items explained quite clearly that the new additional requirement for age of £7.50 would not be available to persons in residential or nursing homes.
Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Mr. President. In referring to the answer to my hon. colleague, he mentioned the debate that took place here in July — July 10th of this year. Will the minister indicate to this hon. Court, prior to bringing in the £7.50 payment, whether or not the £2, which was the age addition over 80 years of age, was deducted under the same Act from those people in homes? Would he indicate to the Court that situation?
The President: An entirely different question. Out of order.
Pension Increases — Pensioners in Residential Homes — Question by Mr. Kermode T22 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
POLICE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE — TYNWALD APPROVAL — QUESTION BY MR. DELANEY
The President: We go on to the next question. I call upon the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney. Question 12.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. President, I beg to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:
When will the new independent public complaints procedure be brought before Tynwald for approval?
The President: The Minister for Home Affairs.
Mr. Lowey: Thank you, Mr. President. The review of the present police complaints procedure, which I know the questioner alludes to in his question to the Court, which I initiated, is now nearing completion. I expect to have the report of the committee dealing with the matter by the end of November. I will be advising this hon. Court of its findings and any recommendations early in the new year, sir.
Mr. Delaney: I thank the minister for his timely reply.
DOUGLAS HEAD RADIO TOWER — QUESTION BY MRS. HANNAN
The President: Question 13. The hon. member for Peel.
Mrs. Hannan: Mr. President, I beg to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:
Why was a radio tower built on Douglas Head and who uses it?
The President: The Minister for Home Affairs.
Mr. Lowey: Thank you, Mr. President. The radio tower which was erected alongside Manx Radio's building on Douglas Head last year replaced the mast which previously stood on the flat roof of the Manx Radio building. When the Manx Radio building was refurbished in 1988, the flat roof was replaced by a pitched one and this necessitated the removal of the old mast from the roof. An alternative site, therefore, had to be found for an aerial structure and, with the co-operation of Manx Radio, a new tower was eventually erected alongside their building. The new tower merely replaced a structure which was already there. The only difference is that the new one rises from ground level whereas the old one was on the roof of the building and perhaps less noticeable. The tower is used by the police to provide UHF radio communications for policemen on the beat in lower Douglas and, in particular, in the vicinity of Douglas harbour. This is an area that cannot be covered satisfactorily on UHF from any other site and is, as I am sure will be appreciated, an area where good communications are essential.
Police Complaints Procedure — Tynwald Approval — Question by Mr. Delaney Douglas Head Radio Tower — Question by Mrs. Hannan TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T23
Mrs. Hannan: A supplementary, Mr. President. Is it not possible to cover Douglas with the mast at the police station, and at the inquiry it was not stated that any other mast would be required to cover Douglas?
Mr. Lowey: The question is, no, it cannot... I am not a technical person but I do have, as you know, on the department a man of great technical expertise, but radio signals do not bend and there are certain areas in Douglas that are not covered from the radio tower at the police headquarters; it is impossible. And, secondly, there was no mention of another tower because the existing one was already there and being used to relay. That is why a tower had to go in. But notwithstanding the work of the repitching of the roof, the existing aerial that was on that roof was in a very bad condition and I am advised would have had to be replaced anyway because it was held up with wires and it was in a rusted position because of its exposed position, but it is a necessary position to cover certain areas in Douglas that cannot be reached by the aerial that operates from the police headquarters.
Mrs. Hannan: A further supplementary, Mr. President. Could I ask if there are any other users of this radio mast on Douglas Head?
Mr. Lowey: Not to the best of my knowledge.
COMMERCIAL REGISTRY/JUDICIAL BUILDING AND COURT HOUSE — DEFERMENT OF COMMENCEMENT — QUESTION BY MR. DELANEY
The President: Question 14. The hon. member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney.
Mr. Delaney: Thank you, Mr. President. I beg to ask the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties:
Having expressed the urgency for a new Commercial Registry/Judicial Building and Court House, why have you now deferred commencement?
The President: Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties.
Mr. Catlin: Mr. President, in answer to the question, the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties did not make the decision to defer the commencement of this proposed new complex. However, it is the usual practice with a capital programme to be reviewed each year in the light of changing circumstances, taking into account the range of capital projects which have been proposed. Inevitably, some schemes are advanced and others deferred as part of that process. The Council of Ministers have decided to give top priority to health, housing, education and drainage. As a consequence, it is recommended in the policy document that the new Registry/Judicial Buildings and Court House project should be deferred by one year, as the hon. member is aware. This deferment means that the timescale for the design programme will have to be rearranged and my department is in the process of carrying out this exercise. Given the marked
Commercial Registry/Judicial Building and Court House — Deferment of Commencement — Question by Mr. Delaney T24 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 deficiencies of the present Douglas Court House and the inadequate facilities in the Registry building, the proposed new complex is still urgently needed and, therefore, it features prominently in the five-year capital programme. Now, Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to respond to what the hon. member asking the question stated on Manx Radio yesterday. He said — and I quote: `Now we find the minister, in the general report on policy of Government, is putting this development back to 1993. Why waste so much important time when we could be debating other items of importance to the general public and then, within a short period of time announce that he doesn't intend to go on with it? It is a typical example of where really the ministers don't know where they are going in relation to these matters of major expenditure.' Firstly, Mr. President, I have never at any time announced either in public or in private that I do not intend to go on with this development. Secondly, I am sorry if I have to disappoint the hon. member, but I do happen to know where I intend to go in relation to this particular major capital development, but I realise it has to be fitted in with an overall Government five-year capital programme. Furthermore, I do not believe there has been any important time wasted debating this item.
Mr. Delaney: A supplementary, Mr. President. Will the minister not agree with me that, when debating this item referred to in the question, I put an amendment down to defer the matter, and he is on record — and I quote: 'If you vote against this resolution you will be holding the building of this building of a new Court House and a General Registry back goodness knows how many years.' If the minister, in his answer to me, Mr. President, is so designed that he feels that to spend several hours of the Court's business on a matter in July and then have it deferred on the report which comes out before the beginning of October, surely, Mr. President, the minister in actual fact does not know where he is going.
The President: I do not think that calls for a reply nor, indeed, is it an appropriate question.
TRAFFIC REPORT — AVAILABILITY TO TYNWALD MEMBERS — DEMOLITION OF HOMES — QUESTION BY MR. DELANEY
The President: Now, we go on, hon. members, to question 15. I call upon the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney.
Mr. Delaney: I beg to ask the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties:
Whereas you commissioned a report into traffic by JMP Ltd., the contents of which were made public in the Manx Independent newspaper and subsequently discussed by you and your officers on Manx Radio,
(I) Will you now give copies of that report to members of Tynwald, to enable them to make a well-informed judgment on its contents and to allay the concerns that are being expressed by the public?
Traffic Report — Availability to Tynwald Members — Demolition of Homes — Question by Mr. Delaney TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T25
(2) Will you confirm that in this report it is stated that you will require the demolition of a number of family homes in the Kensington Road/Westmoreland Road area?
The President: The Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties.
Mr. Callin: Mr. President, JMP Consultants were commissioned by my department to undertake an independent review of the current traffic and parking conditions in Douglas and to institute a transport strategy that would take Douglas into the twenty-first century. JMP Consultants Limited prepared a draft — and I I underline the word draft — executive summary, which is a very brief document and was issued in confidence — and I underline the words in confidence — at a meeting held on the 23rd May 1990. The document was released for myself, members of my department and senior officers, the chairman of the Planning Committee, together with two senior officers on the staff of the Department of Local Government and the Environment, the Minister of the Department of Tourism and Transport, two senior police officers, the Chief Fire Officer and his deputy, the Chairman of the Works Committee of Douglas Corporation, together with senior officials from the Corporation. I would emphasise that the document issued constituted a draft report and that the final report has yet to be received by my department. Furthermore, the contents of both the draft report and the final report will act as a guide for the future development of the traffic network in Douglas and will not be a rigid set of objectives. A great deal of technical information has been provided which will be of considerable assistance to the technical officers in my department. The draft report has been referred to the Highways Committee of the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties, under the chairmanship of Mr. W.A. Gilbey MHK and discussions on the wide-ranging topics will take place with representatives of the Douglas Corporation Public Works Committee, the Department of Tourism and Transport, the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Local Government and the Environment, and the Department of Health and Social Security and other interested parties. (Interruption) Do you want the answer, sir, or not? The contents of the executive summary were to be treated in confidence, thus enabling discussions to be progressed and a consensus of opinion to be obtained on the numerous recommendations contained within the document. Unfortunately someone broke that confidence and certain of the contents of the executive summary were leaked to the Press. In an attempt to mitigate the damage done by the Press release of this confidential information I gave a radio interview, together with the Surveyor-General, on the background leading to the appointment of JMP Consultants Ltd., to their terms of reference and the studies and surveys undertaken by them, but I would emphasise that at no time did I disclose, so far as I can recall, any details of the recommendations contained within the executive summary. At this point in time I do not believe it would be in the best interests of anyone to release the JMP Consultants Limited draft executive summary to members of Tynwald as the final report is not yet to hand, and it is conceivable that it may vary to some degree from the document already received. Furthermore, before releasing any information to hon. members it will be necessary for the Highways Committee of my department to submit their observations and recommendations for consideration by the department. I want to make it clear that the report is not
Traffic Report — Availability to Tynwald Members — Demolition of Homes - Question by Mr. Delaney T26 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 a secret document but it is confidential until such time as it has been fully considered by my department after consultation with Douglas Corporation, the Department of Tourism and Transport, the emergency services and Members of the House of Keys for Douglas. (Interruptions and laughter) I would maintain this should be normal procedure under the circumstances. It will be the intention, in due course, to make a formal presentation to the Council of Ministers. As stated previously, Mr. President, I am unable to confirm what is contained within the JMP Consultants Limited Report in general, and specifically to the issue of the demolition of properties as the final report has yet to be received. To raise such issues of this nature prematurely could cause undue anxiety and distress for home owners, possibly without any justification. Mr. Delaney: Mr. President, would the minister, having given us a comprehensive reply which tells us this confidential document, which was circulated to everyone including a car park attendant, indicate to this hon. Court that as the information is now out and is circulating, as appeared in the local Press, including the demolition of these properties, that the responsibility for the security of that document rested with him and his department, and now that these people, who are having these properties so called optionally destroyed if this full report is implemented, will he apologise to them for the inconvenience they have been caused and the property that might lose its value because of this report, which was confidential, being leaked from his department, or people he entrusted it with?
The President: Hon. members, that question is not in order. It raises an entirely different issue. Mr. Kermode: Mr. President, just to confirm my own position, would the minister please confirm that on the two meetings the department has had about the JMP Report I was not present? (Laughter) And, Mr. President, as it concerns a big part of my constituency, will the minister also confirm that I have continually shown the concern, because of people of my constituency in Kensington Road, Westmorland area, that it is causing them a great deal of problems as well and they are worried about the situation?
Mr. Delaney: Well done, Phil!
The President: And I, hon. members, have at least some concern for the well- being of hon. members of this Court, as well as the hon. member for Douglas East! The question is again not in order. We proceed to the next question.
Mr. Delaney: You will get a confidential reply to that.
The President: Yes!
SPRINGFIELD ROAD, PULROSE — CLOSURE OF ROAD JUNCTION — QUESTION BY MR. DUGGAN
The President: We proceed to the next question, question 16. Now, in the absence
Springfield Road, Pulrose — Closure of Road Junction — Question by Mr. Duggan TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T27 of the hon. member, Mr. Duggan, through illness I propose to call upon his colleague in South Douglas, Mr. Cretney, who has undertaken to ask this question in his name.
Mr. Cretney: Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. Duggan, I beg leave to ask the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties:
(1) What is the reason for the closure of the junction between Springfield Road and the New Castletown Road?
(2) What consultation has taken place with Douglas Corporation and any other departments concerned?
(3) On whose recommendation was the closure made?
Mr. Catlin: Mr. President, in the first instance I should like to make it quite clear that the Traffic Regulatory Order which came into force on the 18th September last prohibiting vehicular traffic from using the junction referred to in the hon. member's question is only a temporary order, continuing in force until next Thursday, the 18th October, two days hence. The statutory procedures laid down by the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1985, namely public notice of intent to make the order at least seven days prior to making thereof and public notice within seven days of the making thereof, were given by the department in two local newspapers of the 4th and 14th of September and no written submissions were received by the department in response to those public notices. The answer to the first part of the hon. member's question: for a long time the Douglas Corporation, the police and the department have been concerned over the volume of traffic using Pulrose Road and Springfield Road as a short cut through the housing estate to avoid delays at the Quarterbridge roundabout. In an endeavour to alleviate the volume of traffic on Pulrose and Springfield Roads for this purpose a traffic order was made prohibiting vehicles travelling from the south along the new Castletown Road from turning right into Springfield Road, and this came into force in October 1986. In addition, to encourage traffic travelling south to use Groves Road as the primary route rather than travelling through the housing estate, road works were carried out at the junction of Pulrose Road and Groves Road together with revisions to the traffic priority at this junction, to make it obvious to the motorist that Groves Road was the major route. Unfortunately, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, many motorists travelling south from Douglas were still using Pulrose Road and Springfield Road when travelling south. The temporary closure of the Springfield Road/New Castletown Road junction for the period of operation of the order has had the effect of eliminating this through traffic. The reason for the temporary closure of this junction is to enable the Douglas Corporation to assess the impact on the residents of Pulrose, the buses and other commercial concerns, during the one-month closure period. In answer to the second part of the question, this department did not consult with the Douglas Corporation as the temporary closure of this junction was at the specific request of the Douglas Corporation. In answer to the third part of the question, the recommendation for the temporary junction closure was made by the Douglas Corporation as the department agents
Springfield Road, Pulrose — Closure of Road Junction — Question by Mr. Duggan T28 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 for the borough roads, following representations that they had received from the traffic division of the police, who in fact suggested the junction be permanently closed. The effects, Mr. President, of this temporary junction closure will be evaluated by the Douglas Corporation, taking into account any comments received from local residents and any other interested party and a recommendation, I presume, will then be submitted to my department for consideration.
COASTAL FOOTPATH — QUESTION BY MR. KARRAN
The President: We move on, hon. members, to Question 17. I call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Karran.
Mr. Karran: I beg leave to ask the Minister for Highways, Ports and Properties:
(1) What progress has been made towards the completion of the round-the- Island coastal footpath?
(2) Have negotiations taken place within the last five years with any landowners?
(3) How much has been spent over the last two years on the upkeep and maintenance of the existing coastal rights of way?
Mr. Collin: Mr. President, I would inform the hon. member, in answer to his three-part question: Firstly — and I hope Mrs. Hannan is listening — the Raad ny Foillan, which translates 'the Road of the Gull', is the present coastal footpath and is waymarked with a blue sign showing a gull in flight and is about 90 miles in length (Laughter) This footpath follows the coast, as far as is practical, from the flat shingle beaches of the north to the precipitous cliffs of the south. This long- distance footpath, as it exists at present, was established with the willing co-operation of various landowners and it is only in a small number of places, where impractical or unsafe, that it is not close to the coast, or where the permission of the landowner was not forthcoming. In this latter case the route deviates inland and uses public highways, and these areas include sections in Patrick, Maughold, Lonan and Santan. To answer the first part of the question, such matter has not been considered by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties at department level, so no progress has been made to bring the route of the Road of the Gull nearer to the coast in the areas that I have referred to. Moving to the second part of the question, I can inform the hon. member that informal discussions have taken place at officer level with various landowners or their agents. Although no specific agreement has been reached these discussions will continue and the department will be pleased to consider any recommendations resulting therefrom. To answer the third part of the question, up to the end of September this year the department's footpath maintenance section have spent £5,500 on the Way of the Gull. Last year's '89/90 expenditure was £8,500. I would also mention that there
Coastal Foothpath — Question by Mr. Karran TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T29 was criticism for some time — and, I believe, quite rightly so — with the amount of attention that the public footpaths received generally, and I would just like to take this opportunity to mention that expenditure on public rights of way during the last two financial years was firstly £38,478, and last year we put a great deal more effort than had been done previously and the amount expended was £113,580, and the increase in expenditure was largely due to fencing work which was necessary.
Mr. Karran: Would the hon. minister tell this hon. Court which sections of the coastal footpath that is not there at the present time are unsafe? And can he give some indication to this hon. Court of how long will it be before we will get the desired plan of having a round the Island coastal footpath? And could he also tell this hon. Court, how many years has this proposal been ongoing up until now as far as the Road of the Gull is concerned?
Mr. Catlin: Well, as far as I know, sir, to answer the last part of the question, it is 1986; I think that is correct. He asks about the areas where the footpath does not go close to the coast. I thought I had mentioned those. They are sections in Patrick, Maughold, Lonan and Santan, and if anybody wants actual detail of the plan itself I would be very pleased to let them have a copy. As far as the department is concerned, as I have reported, our officers have got this matter in hand and they have been talking to landowners to try and bring about the very thing that 1 think the hon. questioner is trying to do, and when they have got recommendations to put before the department I am sure they will be favourably considered.
Mr. Karran: A further supplementary, Mr. President. What I want for clarification to the hon. Court is, what sections of the coast are unsafe in order that we cannot have an all-Island footpath, as I believe that there are no sections that are unsafe as far as a viable public footpath?
Mr. Callin: Well, I would have thought that — I have never walked round this footpath so I cannot give the detail — but I would have thought, Mr. President, that there are a number of areas which could be considered as unsafe, and as far as our department is concerned, wherever those areas are I am certain that they would not wish to take a footpath into an area that was unsafe. I could think of places in Kirk Michael, (Laughter) I could think of areas in the south of the Island. I could think probably areas that are between Douglas and Ramsey, but if the hon. member wants details of the areas that are considered to be unsafe I will be quite happy to get him a list in detail.
RADIO MASTS — PLANNING PERMISSION — QUESTION BY MRS. HANNAN
The President: Question 18, the hon. member for Peel.
Mrs. Hannan: Mr. President, I beg leave to ask the Minister for Local Government and the Environment:
Radio Masts — Planning Permission — Question by Mrs. Hannan T30 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
(I) Does planning permission exist for the Radio Masts at (a) Mull Hill, Rushen (b) Peel Hill, Patrick
(2) If so, when was that permission given and for what?
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. President. On Mull Hill there are two aerials: a single antennae with compound near the summit. This was approved for the Ministry of Defence during 1984; and secondly, in the latter half of the 1970s the then Electricity Board erected two masts, and, while permission was given for the small building alongside the masts, no record of any permission for the masts is recorded. On Peel Hill there are also twin poles and a small building. These were approved in January 1981. Subsequent planning applications for more substantial masts on Mull Hill and on Peel Hill have either been refused permission or have been withdrawn.
Mrs. Hannan: A supplementary, Mr. President. Could I ask where that leaves the Mull Hill mast? Without planning permission what action does the Department of Local Government and the Environment intend to take?
The President: The minister to reply.
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. President. With regard to that, as the masts concerned were erected over some 10 to 12 years ago the department has no plans to take any action on those masts.
Mrs. Hannan: Another supplementary, Mr. President. Does that mean, if someone builds something without planning permission and it is not recorded, that if it has not been noticed they can do exactly what they want?
Mr. Brown: No, Mr. President, that does not say that. However, as the hon. member will be aware in 1982 this hon. Court approved an Isle of Man Development Plan and we would suggest that that in fact covers such matters back at that stage.
Mr. Hannan: Does the Minister of the Environment not appreciate this is a special planning area?
Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. President. However, as the poles have been established for such a considerable time, and apparently during that period of time it was not uncommon for the planning committees of those days not to request such applications, it is therefore seen, and the department take the view, it would be unreasonable to ask for a retrospective planning permission for something that is over 12 years old.
Mrs. Hannan: A further supplementary, Mr. President. Is the minister aware that new equipment is being put into the mast on Mull Hill and will he take action to require planning permission for this new equipment?
Radio Masts — Planning Permission — Question by Mrs. Hannan TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T31
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, if planning permission is required for any installations on the Isle of Man my department would insist on a planning application being put forward.
Mr. Quirk: Would the minister consider that the acceptability of a mast on these hills would be in favour of an application for a dwelling house or any other building in that particular area?
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I think I would make it clear that my view is quite simple: we should minimise the amount of masts on the hills of the Isle of Man, and that certainly does not give precedence to any other type of development.
PLANNING INFRINGEMENTS — PROSECUTIONS — QUESTION BY MRS. HANNAN
The President: Question 19, the hon. member for Peel.
Mrs. Hannan: Mr. President, I beg leave to ask the Minister for Local Government and the Environment:
How many planning infringements have been reported in the last three years and how many prosecutions have resulted?
Mr. Brown: The planning office would receive on average 30 reports of alleged planning infringements per week. Of these perhaps five reports would prove to have some validity necessitating further action by the Planning Committee. Most of those matters would be resolved by submission of a retrospective planning application. It is a rare occurrence that court action would be needed to resolve the matter. During the past three years my department has resorted to court action on five occasions, all five actions proving successful.
Mr. Quine: Mr. President, would the minister not agree that if planning !permission is going to be ignored to this extent there is no sanction in being and consequently no real need for people to adhere to the planning requirements, and that this policy is fundamental to the present situation where so much is going on and other people's rights in terms of objecting to these applications are being prejudiced. And will he review this policy and ensure that effective deterrents are put in place against people who do not obtain planning approval?
Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. President, I think the first thing that has to be taken is — and I will refer to my predecessor who answered a question to the hon. questioner who has just resumed his seat and in that the view is still the same — the department's Planning Committee, Mr. President, would take the view that if the matter that has been brought to the department's attention would normally be able to be clarified through an application being submitted, which would still be advertised and go through the normal process, then in fact the department would in fact take that
Planning Infringements — Prosecutions — Question by Mrs. Hannan T32 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 course of action. I think it has to be said that the department's view is that as a last resort the department will prosecute. However, in determining that we do take the advice of our legal advisers, who are Her Majesty's Attorney-General's Department, as to whether or not a prosecution should proceed. And I think it is also fair to say that while the department takes a very, very serious view on persons developing without planning permission, ultimately the Planning Committee is there to ensure that if a development is there or goes ahead, in fact it is covered with a valid planning application, and if that can be attained because of the procedure being adopted later then the department would take that view. However, where the Planning Committee would come to a position where it would not accept an approval, then in fact the department may well take action on that, and it is, whether we like it or not, a matter of judgement. There are people in responsible positionsl who have to determine whether or not each individual case which has totally different circumstances warrants action by the department to take it to court, and in doing that I have to say, Mr. President, my department would want to at least to be in a strong position to be able to at least succeed in such cases.
Dr. Mann: Mr. President, a supplementary. If your department is in fact looking at 30 or more infringements per week have you the necessary resources to investigate that number within a week? I am sure you have not, sir.
Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. President, I think it is a well-known fact that the department is under considerable stress in its planning inspection area. The department, I understand, has previously made this point quite clear. However, I think it should be made clear also that many of the infringements that we are talking about are in fact very minor matters which in many cases have got permissions and people have not been aware of those permissions. Serious ones, however, do take a lot more time, and if our Planning Inspector identifies a serious situation it then does take up a lot of resources of our planning officers, our Planning Committee and so on.
Dr. Mann: Mr. President, a further supplementary. If these infringements are in fact confirmed, the speed with which your department responds is so slow that in fact a further development occurs during that time. Can you confirm that you actually have not the resources to do what you say?
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I would just say that if in fact our inspector was to get a report this morning and he went to see a place that was contravening planning, he is in a position to put a stop notice on immediately and therefore any person who then continues to develop with a stop notice on, as has been the case on one of our successful cases, in fact is then taken to court.
Mrs. Hannan: Is it not the case, Mr. President, that in recent times a house has been built without planning permission? And also would the minister consider stronger legislation is required to enforce planning controls to protect our environment? And I will also follow up the point made by the member for Garff — will the minister in future ensure that there are more staff within the department to enforce the law, as it stands at the moment and more in future when he improves
Planning Infringements — Prosecutions — Question by Mrs. Hannan TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T33 the legislation?
The President: I accept that as an observation, not a question. Hon. member for Ayre.
Mr. Quine: Mr. President, can the minister give us the average fine for those prosecutions which have been taken?
Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. President. As 1 am sure the hon. questioner will be totally aware, it is a matter for the courts to fine, not a matter for my department. However, fines have ranged to a maximum of up to about fsoo-aoo, and mainly from about £50 upwards, but again 1 would suggest that is a matter for the court, that is not a matter for my department and it is presumably based on the judgement of the people hearing the case as to the seriousness of the infringement. Can I just make it clear, Mr. President, because I would hate the inference to go out which I am sure is trying to be built up here, that my department does not care about planning infringements and that 1 do not and the Planning Committee do not. I would say nothing is further from the truth. However, we are, when planning infringements are identified, in a position of having to make a case and we have to be sure of that case before we take it to court. However, if that matter can be rectified by a retrospective planning permission being taken because the matter is not seen to be so serious, then in fact my department will look towards a retrospective planning application coming in and it would go through the normal courses where the people and the public in the area could object. There are cases we have great concerns about, but again we take legal advice as to whether or not we should pursue that matter through the courts.
Dr. Mann: Mr. President, a further supplementary. Would not the minister confirm that for long periods of time there is no enforcement officer in post at all and therefore his answer is actually totally incorrect?
Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. President, I cannot answer for situations well back. I understand there was a period when there was a change of officer who got another job. However, that being said, we have an officer in post, as far as I understand, and that officer carries out his duties as best he can. Could I just say, Mr. President, as hon. members are only too aware, although my department would fight for it, it is not a matter for my department whether or not we are given adequate staffing resources. The same as any other department we have to fight our case with the Civil Service Commission, and all I would say is that there was certainly a very close tie with the Civil Service and the Planning Committee in the last three years.
POTATO MARKETING ASSOCIATION — LEVY ON MEMBERS — QUESTION BY MR. RADCLIFFE
The President: Question 20, the hon. member for Council, Mr. Radcliffe.
Potato Marketing Association — Levy on Members — Question by Mr. Radcliffe T34 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. President, I beg leave to ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry:
Whereas —
(a) Under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, the Potato Marketing Association is empowered (with your department's concurrence) to impose a levy on producer members; and
(b) this currently stands at £14 per acre on all potatoes grown -
(1) What sum is raised by this levy?
(2) Does your department consider that
(a) this levy is fair and equitable in view of this Association's diminished and further diminishing role in marketing this product; and
(b) the Potato Marketing Association should be suspended until such time as it can demonstrate to producers that it intends to adopt a more positive role in the marketing of potatoes?
The President: The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. North: Mr. President, in answer to number (1), the 1990 potato levy of £14 per acre is anticipated to produce an income of £7,064. A similar rate of £14 per acre applied in 1989 and raised an actual figure of £7,168. It is important to appreciate that the full funding provided to the association by the levy is not exclusively designated for the marketing of potatoes. The major part of the levy is used as the Potato Marketing Association contribution to the costs of the society as a whole. It therefore represents a direct contribution from the potato growers to the society and is part of the overall policy of spreading society costs over all sectors of the industry, i.e. milk, fat stock and potato producers. The department itself is also responsible for involving the association in costs by inviting the attendance of the Executive Committee to meetings of its Agricultural Marketing Committee to make recommendation on potato prices. The department has endeavoured over the past few years to reduce the number of such meetings and, through it, costs to the association. The decision has now been taken by the department to withdraw from potato pricing, so financial calls on the association should fall even further. The department would not consider suspending the association for it does allow all potato growers, through their elected representatives, a voice in the running of the potato industry and direct access to Government through the department. While the emphasis on marketing has changed over the past decade from a collective response to a more individual approach, the association does serve a useful function in times of surplus, in organising and funding purchase for export or for stock feed and, in times of shortage, by linking buyer to grower.
Potato Marketing Association — Levy on Members — Question by Mr. Radcliffe TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T35
Mr. Quine: Mr. President, can the minister tell us specifically what service have potato growers received during this current financial year for their payment of £14 per acre? What service have they received for that payment of £14 per acre?
Mr. North: Mr. President, certainly during the last winter there was a request for the importation of potatoes to my department and this was refused. We were supplied with a list of potatoes that were available and the association had that list and all the time monitored the state of the market to advise us and therefore help local producers.
The President: No further supplementaries? That, hon. members, brings us to the end of oral questions. The remaining questions are for written answer, and those answers will be circulated.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS — CONSULTANTS' FEES
Question 21
The hon. member for Peel (Mrs. Hannan) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:
(1) Are consulting fees included in the estimates of each department?
(2) Is Treasury satisfied that the use of consultants represents good value for money?
(3) By whom were
(a) Treasury consultant fees of £280,444 (b) Insurance Authority consultant fees of £116,000 (c) Financial Supervision consultant fees of £78,204
all quoted as being expended over the last three years, approved, and for what purpose?
Answer
Mr. President, In answering the hon. member's questions I would refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Onchan (Mr. Karran) on 16th July 1990 and a similar question asked by the hon. member for Middle (Mr. North) on 20th June 1989. I would again highlight the difficulty in determining exactly what information is required as once more the definition of 'consultant' can have various interpretations. For example, departments undertaking capital projects appoint architectural and other professional consultants, whilst other departments engage consultants or persons with legal expertise for specific projects such as the current review of the Island's quality of life. i assume, however, that as the question relates to the information given in July last, the questioner is satisfied with the broad
Government Departments — Consultants' Fees — Question by Mrs. Hannan T36 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 definition of consultant adopted on that occasion. This point was raised with the hon. member for Onchan in July last and clarification was sought as to the particular area of consultancy which was causing concern. However, to date no reply has been received. With regard to the first part of the question, I can confirm that departments are required to and do make provision in their estimates for consultancy fees. Should it become necessary to appoint consultants for which no such provision had been made a department would have to either seek Treasury approval to an appropriate virement within its existing vote or seek Tynwald approval to supplementary expenditure. The matter of value for money was also raised in July last, and I can but repeat what was said on that occasion. The Treasury must rely on the departments concerned to ensure that they are getting value for money. I would add that this is an area which the Value for Money Committee is considering addressing. Moving to that part of the question listing specific consultancy fees, again I find myself in some difficulty. The estimates of the Treasury Departments, due in this I include the Insurance Authority and the Financial Supervision Commission, are ultimately approved by Tynwald in the Budget. Is this the assurance the hon. member is seeking, or is she seeking confirmation that the provision for these fees received Treasury approval? Assuming the latter to be the case I can confirm that prior Treasury approval was obtained before any of the 'consultants' to which these figures relate were appointed. The amount of £280,444 expended by the Treasury over the last three financial years relates to two matters —
a) Professional and consultancy fees associated with the Treasury Working Party on the Implementation of the Financial Supervision Act 1988. Hon. members will recall that this was the Act which mirrored the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986 of Parliament and introduced an improved level of investor protection. The expenses of this working party, which was dissolved once designated country status had been obtained, totalled £225,767. Whilst this might seem a large amount, it should be remembered that regulation of the finance industry imposed by the Financial Supervision Act was and still is a highly complex matter. The drafting of the numerous regulations which had to be made under the Act and the delicate negotiations with the UK Government in order to achieve designated country status was beyond the resources of the hard pressed Attorney-General's Department. Taken in the context of the level of contribution to the economy by the finance sector the money expended has been repaid many times.
b) The balance of £54,677 relates to the cost of the investigation into Trafalgar Management Ltd. Hon. members will be aware that at the request of the Treasury the Court appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of this company. The amount of £54,677 refers to the fees of the inspector and his legal adviser. It is important for the Island to maintain its reputation as a reputable international financial centre and the Treasury must be prepared to accept the responsibility for such investigations should they occur.
The major single item of Insurance Authority consultancy fees of £116,000 is
Government Departments — Consultants' Fees — Question by Mrs. Hannan TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T37 in respect of actuarial services. One of the conditions for the Island obtaining `Designated Territory Status' under the UK Financial Services Act in respect of its life assurance business was that the Authority have available to it actuarial support. It would not be practicable to employ a full-time actuary so a firm of consultants is used. This support is vital for the Island to supervise its very large offshore life assurance industry effectively. In addition, the Authority require the technical insurance, accounting and legal advice on specific subjects. To obtain this it is necessary to engage professional consultants. The breakdown of the Insurance Authority consultancy fees is as follows:- The use of consultants and their consulting fees are approved by the Insurance Authority and ultimately, the Treasury.
Actuarial Services — £50,000 Accounting Services — £21,000 Legal Services — £4,500 Insurance Services — £22,500 Computer and Office Systems — £5,000 Marketing Report — £7,250 Architect Fees in respect of new offices — £1,875
Total — £115,125
All of the Financial Supervision Commission consultancy fees of £78,204 have been expended on obtaining the necessary technical advice to continue the development of effective systems for the regulation of banks, investment businesses and collective investment schemes. Promotion of the Island as a reputable and sound financial sector with high standards of investor protection and protection of that reputation is crucial to the future success of the finance sector, on which we rely for so much of our prosperity. The Treasury is satisfied that the expenditure referred to above represents value for money when taken in the overall concept of the benefit to the economy of the Island.
BALLACOBB HOUSING UNITS — BALLACURN HOUSE TRUST DEED — QUESTION BY MR. CANNAN
Question 22
The hon. member for Michael (Mr. Cannan) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security:
Whereas your department are Trustees of the Ballacurn House Trust in terms of the late Mrs. Cobb's bequest —
Will you provide me with a copy of the advice of the Attorney-General on the
Ballacobb Housing Units — Ballacurn House Trust Deed — Question by Mr. Cannan T38 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 responsibilities of your department created by the Trust Deed together with a copy of the policy review paper incorporating that advice (the Chief Executive's letter to me dated 25th July refers) which has resulted in the cancellation of the proposal to erect a further six units at Ballacobb?
Answer
No. I have nothing further to add to the information in the Chief Executive's letters of 25th July and 24th September 1990.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY — CONSULTANTS — FEES — QUESTION BY MRS. HANNAN
Question 23
The hon. member for Peel (Mrs. Hannan) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security:
What consultants have been employed by your department (other than in hospitals) during the past three years and what fees were paid to each of them?
Answer
During the year ended 31st March 1988, the department employed consultants for building and engineering works, to whom fees totalling £198,639 were paid. In addition, the department employed consultants for one-off management reports, to whom fees totalling £225 were paid. The corresponding figures for the following two years were:-
Year ended 31st March 1989 - Building and engineering works — £483,091 One-off management reports — £10,652
Year ended 31st March 1990 - Building and engineering works — £193,756 One-off management reports — £22,628
PROCEDURAL
The President: So we come back to our Agenda Paper, hon. members, and at this stage I would wish to have the advice and guidance of hon. members. My feeling, hon. members, is that the policy debate is one of such importance to the Manx people that it should have an uninterrupted flow and it would be perhaps advisable to take it after the lunch break, in the meantime proceeding with other items on the Agenda. If the House is prepared to accept that line I would propose to hold over the policy
Department of Health and Social Security — Consultants — Fees — Question by Mrs. Hannan Procedural TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T39
debate until after lunch and proceed with the next item on the Agenda, which is item 4. Is that agreeable? (It was agreed.) Thank you, hon. members.
EXPORT OF GOODS (IRAQ AND KUWAIT SANCTIONS) (APPLICATION) ORDER 1990 — APPROVED
The President: Item 4, Customs and Excise (Application) Act. The Minister for the Treasury.
Mr. Gelling: I beg to move:
That the Export of Goods (Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions) (Application) Order 1990, made by the Treasury on 9th August 1990, be and the same is hereby approved.
Mr. President, this resolution seeks approval to the Export of Goods (Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions)(Application) Order 1990, made by the Treasury under the provisions of the Customs and Excise Acts (Application) Act 1975. I beg to move, ' Mr. President. Mr. Radcliffe: I beg to second, Mr. President.
The President: I will put the resolution. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
TROMODE HOUSE COMMUNITY HOME — CONVERSION TO A CHILDREN'S RESOURCE CENTRE — EXPENDITURE APPROVED
The President: Item 5, the Minister of Health and Social Security.
Mr. Cain: I beg to move:
That Tynwald approves of the Department of Health and Social Security incurring expenditure not exceeding the sum of £425,000 for the conversion of the Community Home to a Children's Resource Centre.
This resolution seeks approval to the expenditure of £425,000 in converting the former remand/detention unit at Tromode House into a children's resource centre which, on conversion, will contain two separate units: firstly, a juvenile justice unit for young offenders; and secondly, a therapeutic care unit for children with emotional and indeed behavioural problems. Whilst the department will retain ownership of the building the units will be operated and managed by the National Children's Home on behalf of the department in accordance with standards and costs agreed between us. I have caused a memorandum to be circulated to hon. members, Mr. President, which I hope has proved useful in explaining the
Export of Goods (Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions) (Application) Order 1990 — Approved Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved T40 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 background to the proposal. With your permission, Mr. President, there are one or two fundamental points which I would like to pick up and expand upon. The first point I do want to make is that it was, as hon. members will recall, only in April this year that statutory responsibility for child care services was transferred to my department from the Department of Education, thus enabling that department to concentrate upon the vitally important function of ensuring that our children receive the education which they need and deserve. At the same time the transfer adds to the process of bringing greater co-ordination to bear, through my department, in the provision of statutory social services across the whole range of client groups. I would emphasise, however, that in taking on these child care responsibilities we have not fallen into the trap of immediately assuming that we know better than our predecessors how to discharg those responsibilities. We have adopted an approach which, if I can draw an analogy with the relay race, ensures the smoothest possible hand-over of the baton. How fast and how far we can run with it remains to be seen. I simply guarantee that we will do our best. The fact, of course, is that for the vast majority of children their social care and development needs are met without intervention from statutory care services. They are met in the home setting by loving and devoted parents intent on seeing their children develop into well-balanced, disciplined and responsible adults. However, and for whatever reason, it is unfortunately a fact that for a small minority of children the traditional parental care function breaks down and requires support from, or substitution by, statutory services. Policies in such cases are set out in the Policy Report which we are about to debate later today. It is worth repeating part of what is said about child care in the Policy Report so that hon. members can appreciate where the present proposal sits in relation to those policies. I quote as follows: 'Policies in relation to children in need of care are presently based upon two guiding principles: firstly, care heeds should be met on the Island to the fullest possible extent.' And that, Mr. President, is a very important principle. 'Secondly, residential care needs should be non-institutional but recognising that for a minority of children, for example those with severe emotional or indeed behavioural problems, special facilities may be required. Thus for children taken into care their needs are met so far as possible through a substantial and developing programme of fostering.' This proposal, hon. members, is concerned with the provision of special facilities for those children with severe emotional or behavioural problems. I do want to stress, however, that the concept of what is intended for Tromode is not new. That concept has already been put into practice under a contract with the department by the National Children's Home at their unit at Dalmeny in Ramsey. But the use of Dalmeny for this purpose has only ever been regarded as temporary for a number of reasons, and these reasons include the following: firstly, the fact that its location is far from ideal in terms of an Island-wide facility; secondly, the potential for unwelcome saturation of the one secondary school in the area of pupils with severe emotional and behavioural problems; there is also the point that Dalmeny is not owned by Government, and this can inhibit the freedom of action in determining appropriate operational policies and practices. The Department of Education, having had the various options examined in consultation with the Department of Home Affairs, the National Children's Home
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T41 and indeed professional advisers, concluded that the best and perhaps the only really realistic option for the permanent siting of this resource centre was the conversion of Tromode House, which, following developments at the prison, was no longer being used for its original purpose as a remand or detention centre. The present proposal is thus the culmination of the detailed planning of that option at a cost of £425,000, which the more eagle-eyed of my colleagues will have noticed is some £95,000 less than the estimates in the current green book. The Tromode House property will be converted to provide residential and day-care places in two independent units. The juvenile justice unit will contain five residential places and the therapeutic care unit nine residential places. In addition, the juvenile justice unit will be able to work again up to 18 children on a day-care basis and the therapeutic care unit with again up to 18 children on .a day basis, depending on the number in residence at any one time. It is anticipated that the conversion work will be completed by September 1991, after which Dalmeny will cease operations. Obviously it is a matter for the National Children's Home organisation to decide what future that property has in their operations. However, we have already indicated to them that we would be very interested in acquiring the property should they decide to dispose of it, and if the hon. members of this Court, Mr. President, are aware of its precise location, adjacent to Ramsey Cottage Hospital, they will perhaps realise the fundamental reason why that action has potentially a great deal of benefit to my department's activities. Mr. President, I very much hope that hon. members will feel able to support this resolution. It represents a significant step forward in our ability to be self-sufficient in social service provision, although it would be quite wrong of me to say that in future there will never be a need for us to purchase special care facilities in the United Kingdom. Total self-sufficiency in this area is probably unattainable in any realistic sense because of the very small numbers involved, but what we are reasonably certain of is that in time the numbers required to be transferred to special institutions in the United Kingdom, whether for custodial or therapeutic care purposes, will be substantially less than has been the case up to now. I beg to move.
Mr. Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Mr. President.
Mr. Kermode: Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the department on their efforts in this direction. I have always felt that the Isle of Man, the community in which we live, has always been one of sheltered... where we have always tried to look after our community and look after our young people, but there comes from time to time... Maybe from outside influences are coming into our Island at this moment in time and our young people could have been led astray. The answer to ship them off the Island... and some years ago I had — it was not a pleasure, it was more of a duty — to visit one of my constituents when I was in another place; their son was sent to borstal. I went to visit that young man, Mr. President, and I was horrified to see the surroundings in which he was put — hardened criminals. The lad was in tears to me, crying because he had not seen anything like this before in his life. And the answer is, if we can catch these young people before they become hardened criminals, all right, they have made mistakes and the reasons they are being punished is because they have made mistakes, but to put them into an environment that was completely alien to them, in amongst hardened criminals,
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved T42 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
will never ever give them the chance, Mr. President, to become part of our society again. They will become hardened criminals, and I feel the department is going down the right direction and I hope this hon. Court will support us.
Brig. Butler: Mr. President, I have no hesitation in supporting this resolution. The problem that we are facing is a very real one and we should give it a little time today. The paper provided by the hon. minister, I think, is very clear and brief but it does cover the important aspects of the problem. It is a very real problem because it is one which is extremely difficult to solve and yet there are human beings involved who themselves do need help and additionally, if we do not solve their problems and treat them in the right way, we are creating enormous problems for ourselves in the future. There is not a cheap way out of this. It is extremely difficult in terms of law to deal with the sort of person we are talking about if we are talking about the juvenile justice unit, and it is extremely difficult in terms of law to deal even with the cases where it is just a question of therapeutic care. The amount of money asked is a very large sum, and one may wonder why so much need be spent on the conversion of a building, but of course this is because of the very type of people that we are looking after, and also because we are looking at two very distinct categories, therapeutic care and the juvenile justice unit, and there does need to be a considerable degree of separation, even though some of the types of looking after will be similar. I feel bound to mention the fact that the home is at present at Dalmeny, which of course is entirely unsuitable. The more cynical members would say 'Of course, he would say that', but it is not just unsuitable because we do not want it in Ramsey; I hope you would not take that sort of view. It is unsuitable because the building is not the layout. It is impossible to separate the two units and in fact, as members will be aware, there have been problems during the current year. I believe the establishment of this new building plus the various measures which have been adopted and the changes in some of the regulations will solve these problems and I think we are looking to a future in which things will work a lot better. It is, of course, very important that the new home should be in right sort of area and I do believe that to be near the major population centre is correct, both for reasons of schools and indeed even home backgrounds. As it happens, I have to admit, Mr. President, that in the current year most of trouble has been Ramsey born and bred, but that, presumably by the law of averages, will not be the case in the future. So I am strongly supportive of this and I do hope that all members will vote for it.
Mr. Corrin: Mr. President, I am a bit confused here and I wonder in fact if the truth is coming out of this Court as to what the real problem is. Mr. President, as I understand the Children's Home, it was basically that children... perhaps their parents had died and they were taken into a home. The home was nothing to do with delinquent children as such. Certainly a certain amount of parental stronger care — one was understanding the children would benefit from that, but I am not aware that the home as such was for children who require some kind of corrective treatment. They have been through the courts and whatever. Now I am hearing disturbing reports of what has gone on in Ramsey recently and that this unit that has been there has been a disaster, and it does disturb me to hear now that it appears — and I ask the minister to clarify this — if the National Children's Home, as we
Tromode House Community Hothe — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expetiditute Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T43 have always understood it, in the future is to be closed at Ramsey, moved to Tromode and these so-called units, separate units, then I think that is a wrong move. Yes, you probably do want these units as such, corrective units, but they should not be associated with children who are in there in a home for a reason that has nothing to do with that they have done anything wrong, that there is any stain on their character whatever, and I would like to know what is going on here. We are going round in circles. This establishment that is now proposed to be reconstructed was closed over a cloud not so many years ago, and I know the Dancocks family and they were treated in a manner most unacceptable to people on this Island. It is a fact of life. We had buildings that were conversions or new buildings made up at the prison to cover some of this area which never came to fruition, or certainly the buildings did but the use of them never did. And now we are branching out again. What is the policy? Where are we going? I do not think, Mr. President, the truth is coming out here. It does not appear to be a policy. And if we are now saying that this conversion of this Children's Resource Centre... it is all these fancy names to disguise something else that we are moving on, kind of covering up past mistakes. It does not move me very much. I want to know, is the broad Children's Home of this Island to be incorporated within this unit, or the units incorporated in the Children's Home? And I would also question as to whether the National Children's Home as such are the appropriate people to run what are in fact a corrective unit for delinquent children, or children that have special problems, because some of these children, of course, can be very, very difficult to handle. It is a fact of life and we must recognise that, and it does concern me that children that have no stain or blot on their character whatsoever can, in the public perception, be thrown in with children who do have problems, and they need to be in a secure regime - regretfully, but nevertheless it is for their own good. And the reason that I question this is because I have heard stories about what has been going on in Ramsey recently, that this so-called corrective unit has been a disaster and that there are children there who have been running riot. What are they doing to other, ordinary children that are there who have no stain on their character whatsoever?
Mr. Anderson: Mr. President, the hon. member for Rushen has brought me to my feet because there are certain things that ought to be said in this Court this morning. First of all I would like to pay tribute to Sister Beryl who ran the Children's Home in Ramsey for a very long time and really ran it through very difficult circumstances, and she was called upon, in fact, to handle young people from difficult backgrounds. The one thing I would hope is that in the new regime there will still be a place for those families where the parents have been lost and, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the position where they have not got a home of their own. I hope that in the new regime that will be fitted in, because that is still going to be necessary, and I understand the concern of the hon. member for Rushen because, going back over quite a number of years, even during Sister Beryl's time in Ramsey, my wife was for a very long time on the committee of the Children's Home — who incidentally were disposed of very quickly at one stage — without having even been thanked for it. I do not know who was responsible for that, but there were many people who not only worked for the Children's Home but collected and supported financially the Children's Home over very many years.
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved T44 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
It may be a good thing now that that is being taken under the wings and the financial support by this Government, but I do hope that, amidst all the other concerns about the juvenile end of the market, the people who are just in need of care and attention will not be forgotten in the new regime. I will be supporting the minister and hope that the outcome will be a satisfactory one for the young people of our Island.
Dr. Orme: Mr. President, it is no surprise to me that the British system of justice which we copy so often has, as a monument to its failure, one of the largest prison populations, per unit of population, in the whole of Europe, and, having seen the way that policy on juvenile offenders develops, I am hardly surprised. It seems to come forward in such a piecemeal fashion, in bits and pieces; responsibilities are not clear, lines are not clear. Let me describe something that has happened since I have been here. I came here four years ago when we had a community home, we had what was then called a `remand and detention centre'. I was told then that the young offenders wing at the prison would be the latest development. A detention, I gather, was then the philosophy. I am now being told, in only a gap of four years, that now we are into juvenile justice units. Two major changes in policy in side that time, and I must confess I am still not clear what our overall policy concerning juvenile offenders is. I am not clear where the responsibilities of the Department of Home Affairs end and where the responsibilities of the DHSS begin, and I am even less clear, having heard the explanation that has just been given to us for this quite considerable sum of money, one of the many considerable sums of money that seems to have been spent in some years on this issue, with very questionable results. Even the information on which the claim is based seems to me to be very questionable. The first page of the presentation that has been given to us suggests that sending young offenders off the Island is a failure. It suggests that in 1986 80 per cent. of young people sent off the Island on care orders re-offended within two years. It fails to tell us, Mr. President, what the figure is for those who stay on the Island, fails to tell us there must have been some experience since then. There must be some experience on which to base that figure. What is our success rate? Our we doing any better? I am certainly, along with my colleague, very concerned about the reports that have been circulating about the present experiment, because that does not seem to have, let us say, generated positive publicity. I am not sure that that is an accurate picture of it, but it does not seem to have generated positive publicity. We seem to be going further on the road of confusing, as Mr. Corrin has said, non-offenders with offenders, and then offenders with serious offenders, and I am totally lost as to where the clear differentiation between those cases is. The development has been put forward on the basis of convenience for the development of Ramsey Cottage Hospital. I see that as a total — (Interruption) Well, it was mentioned, and I see that as a non-issue. Surely it should stand on its own merits. And the merits that are being claimed seem to me to be rather vague. I understand that we are creating a juvenile justice unit which is new; I hope the member proposing this will confirm that that is a completely new approach to the problem. Now, how will that inter-relate with the young offenders wing at the prison, which is still functioning so far as I understand? How will those two interrelate? And how will this theory of fostering and of day-care operate? It certainly is not explained in the paper that I have received.
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T45
Furthermore, what are we going to continue to do with serious offenders? Are they to be partially rehabilitated in stages into this sort of scenario or not? Is it the intention that there should be a working relationship with the prison service in the future or not? If there is to be one, then I am even more concerned about the proposals being put forward of mixing what I will call non-offenders with mild offenders and serious offenders. So I must say, Mr. President, that we seem to treat this very serious issue, this issue which must be fundamental to the rate of offending later in life, in a very, very confused way, and this matter, which asks for a not inconsiderable sum, has not given me any great confidence that we have got our act together in a way that is really going to deal with the problem.
Mr. Karran: Mr. President, I think this debate is slightly getting out of hand and onto the wrong track. I would like to point out firstly that there will be no orphans being sent down to the Tromode unit unless they are needed to go to the therapeutic or they are needed to go to the juvenile justice unit. There will be still provisions within Frances Villas, as there have been for many years, for that facility. Also, can I say that the modern thinking now is to try and make sure that young people who are in care through no fault of their own — we have a policy of trying to foster them and get them into a family home environment instead of a sterile environment as far as homes are concerned. As much as the homes that have been provided over the many years have been run wonderfully well by staff they do not replace the small family unit, and the policy of the Social Services is fostering, and this is why many hon. members will have seen over the recent period the increased activity within the advertising pages of the papers for foster parents, not just for healthy young children, but also for disabled children as well, to try and keep them out of institutions. So I would hate this hon. Court to get this impression that we are going to send poor little orphans into a correction centre, because nothing could be further from the truth. My department is progressive and would not dream of such things, and I do not think even the most right-wing members of this Court would dream of doing such things. I would also like to say to the hon. member for Rushen, Dr. Orme, that, yes, we know about the new wing at the prison. Many of us were totally opposed to the new wing at the prison. Many of us would like to be looking at other alternatives to custody. This member has fought for many years on the need for a probation hostel, the need for somewhere for when these older young offenders, the young 20-year-olds come out, that there is somewhere for them to go, not to go back straight into the very circles that have put them into the prison in the first place. We are quite aware of that. We do not need any lectures on the fact that we should not follow Britain blindly. I would also like to point out that up to recent times the Children and Young Persons Act — we were not allowed to keep people on the Island under statute, so we cannot say what would have happened if those persons were on the Island. But what I would say to hon. members is that we have seen that by sending these children across the water, something which has been dear to my heart since I was on the Board of Education, raising it in the early '80s, it is not just a public waste of money, as the hon. member says about the reoffending rates, it is an absolute failure and we are trying to remedy this situation today. So I would hope that the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Orme, would support us because
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved T46 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 we are aware of the different happenings in the past. I would say to the hon. member, his colleague, Mr. Corrin: as I have pointed out to this Court, there is no question of children going into this unit who do not need to go into this unit so I think the commitment is to foster care. I would just like to say also that when we talk about the old Tromode House — and I do not regard having people having to use buckets as toilets in cells as one way of improving young children in their behaviour problems — there were many problems that were not quite right with the previous set-up of the previous Tromode House allowing for the fact that the previous Tromode House were under direct policies to run their house like they were. I hope that this hon. Court will support this proposal today. I know it is a lot of money, but the alternatives to a life of crime are a far more financial burden to this hon. Court. I hope this Court will support today because, if it does not support today, we will end up going back to the drawing board and you will have a problem that will only get worse, so I hope that members do support today, because we have taken advice, we have done a lot of research on this, Mr. President, we have spent a lot of time on it, so I hope this hon. Court will support it.
Mr. Bell: Mr. President, I will of course be supporting this resolution this morning and I do not wish to dwell on the finer details of the future policy of the department in relation to child care on the Island. I would, though, briefly, Mr. President, simply like to confirm the comments which have been made by one or two members about the unacceptable way Dalmeny has operated over this last, certainly, 12 months and the grave concern that has been generated within the town of Ramsey as to its operation. There have been a number of incidents there which, without going into any details, have given cause for concern. The commissioners had indeed special meetings about this problem because it seems to be escalating. I understand that there has been a change of approach by the National Children's Home, the provision of more staff, tighter supervision of the operation, and I understand now that, certainly for the moment, it is back under control again. The point, Mr. President, I wish to make is that, whilst it may be under control at the moment, left to its own devices the National Children's Home has not come up with adequate management of this particular unit, and I see in the explanatory paper that in fact the same management may well be in position in the new operation, and I would simply like I think, two assurances: first of all, that the management of the new unit will be far more tightly scrutinised than the management of Dalmeny to prevent the same situation happening again in the Douglas area when we send all our Ramsey hooligans up to Douglas to cause you problems; but secondly, I was at one of the initial meetings in relation to the establishment of Dalmeny, the new role at Dalmeny, when at that time concern was expressed by the social workers in the north of the Island, and indeed the doctors, as to what the possible outcome might be. Now, at that stage we were given the assurance that Dalmeny was only going to be used as a temporary operation. Now, with the best will in the world I am sure members of Government are well aware that 'temporary' has an irritating habit of becoming 'permanent' on far too many occasions and I would simply like the minister, please, Mr. President, to give an assurance that Dalmeny will be closed permanently for its present use in September 1991, as has been alluded to. If that statement is made clear to the people of Ramsey, I think it will put a lot of minds
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T47
at rest and perhaps remove a lot of the concern and worry which exists in the town at the moment as to the operation of this unit.
Mr. Walker: Mr. President, the institution of an orphanage, I think, is an institution of the past; I certainly hope it is, Mr. President. And certainly the three children's homes that I have been aware of — the one up on Governors Road, Knottfield and Dalmeny — have all had to change their philosophy in recognition of the changing demands of societies, and we have seen Knottfield changed to a child care institution, a nursery school sort of facility. Dalmeny and, I think, the National Children's Home have recognised that its original use is now needed no more, the demand is not there for that service and for a period of time accepted different role in life, and I think that it is true to say that they accepted that different role in life without having the proper bases and premises to work from, and that has obviously caused problems which hon. members have referred to here today. Mr. President, what we are endeavouring to do is to provide the right sort of premises for this sort of work to take place in. I have to say that many of the concerns my hon. colleague Dr. Orme has expressed I expressed and felt when this situation was first developing, and I got assurances from the Minister for Health and Social Security that overcame my concerns and I have no doubt at all that he can give those assurances to this hon. Court this morning to enable them to understand what the endeavours are with Tromode House. Certainly, Mr. President, Tromode House had its problems in the past, I do believe that those problems stemmed from it being expected to be all things to all men, and we know that that just cannot work any more and, if we do not learn anything else from this exercise, I do believe we should learn that lesson. Whether or not the British system of justice is the right one or not, I suppose, is open to debate. I would certainly look to our authorities to be looking for alternative treatments and sentencing policies and so on, because I do not believe at the end of the day that the best way forward for people is just to lock them up, and in recognition of that I would hope that the Isle of Man is a small enough community to enable our courts to identify individuals who have problems, identify those individuals with the right needs, in fact, to help them overcome the problems that are facing them and, in some cases, that may be a gaol sentence, it may be a sentence of custody and certainly in many other cases it is not a sentence of custody required, it is in fact some care for the individual. I believe what we have to be doing is providing enough alternatives for the courts to be able to deal with those who appear before them as individuals, not as a class of people who are all troublemakers or all housebreakers or all something, but to be able to deal with people as individuals and I do believe that this facility at Tromode House will greatly assist that process along with the steps that have been taken in the prison over recent years, and we can always argue whether or not we would carry out that same exercise again; I have no doubt we have learned from experiences. What we are about is producing a whole range of alternatives which will be made available to the courts, to the social workers, to the probationer officers in order to deal with people as individuals and I think that is a very important thing to do, Mr. President.
Mr. Lowey: Mr. President, I rise to support the resolution that is before us and also to actually point out to this hon. Court that this is to modernise an existing
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved T48 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 building. Those people who express concern about the treatment of young offenders and object to the expenditure of this particular amount of money on this building obviously have not been in Tromode House because, as the hon. member for Onchan says, it was very much cellular, very small rooms, and had all the aura of a detention centre and remand and was not suited for remedial work. It had a very rare resource and that is, Mr. President, a very good staff who were doing work. When I hear people say that nothing changes and we are just following willy-nilly, the reality is that sometimes people, often members of this Court, do not believe in good news. The reality is that the treatment of juvenile crime in the last five years in the Isle of Man has been revolutionised. They do not treat them now as they used to. They have spelt out in this Court numerous times the fact that the welfare services, the probation services and the police deal with offenders prior to getting into court,) and that is the right way, as the Chief Minister has said; it is prevention, stopping them getting on to the ladder of crime and going for an institution which becomes universities of crime, and there is no doubt at all we were sending people to Red Bank and other institutions by statute who were, if you like, innocents abroad. They went in and even the worst of our offenders were the least offenders in these institutions. That is a fact and it was reported by people coming from the U.K. and that was the reason to change. But I want to tell the Court that it does not stop here now with this building; you then have to resource it. Now, it has been said by the minister that it will be done on an agency basis by the National Children's Home and I would hope that hon. members will agree with me that the National Children's Home, as an institution in itself in the United Kingdom, has an experience and an expertise, and that is what we will be buying in the handling of these particular children. They are not beginners and I have to say to you that in the U.K. there is a complete change. Now, I have to say also that the interflow of treatment we have to mirror to a large degree what is in the U.K. because, just like Borstal... although I think that has been abolished on our statute; there is no Borstal institution to send our young offenders to, there is no remand home as such and in the U.K. now, as I am sure members will know, the British Home Secretary said that they were abolishing the ability to send 14-year-old boys to prison. It seems to me a reasonable assumption that 14-year-olds should be susceptible to restraint not in a prison environment. I would agree entirely with that philosophy. These things have got to be reflected here in the Isle of Man. Mr. President, I am quite convinced that it is going to be an expensive exercise dealing with our young offenders, the very small number of offenders that we have, and it is a very small number. But, having just recently been to a conference looking at alternatives to custodial sentences, the cost of £1,000 a week, £1,500 a week is average in the United Kingdom for dealing with young people, and they think that is good value for money because it actually in the long term is, hopefully, cutting down the repetition of crime when they come out of the particular institutions that they have now got in place. Mr. President, the Isle of Man cannot opt out and I believe we have a duty to try and give most people who have offended once the environment in which they can learn their lessons and get back into society as full members and not re-offend.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. President, now we are getting to what I call the jelly babies
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T49
of the whole event. The fact of it is, I have listened to the member for Rushen who rightly pointed out the problems of Ramsey, which was confirmed by a minister of the Government, that had occurred in the last 12 months, may I remind members that Tromode House, which we talked about — the buckets that were there — was built in my time in this Court and in the time of other speakers including the Minister for Home Affairs, who was involved, I think, at that time, in that debate — not in charge, but in that debate. Mr. President, since then we have had that, we have had the conversion of the new prison facilities, as has been indicated, and the one thing that the public outside will be asking, as well as the modernisation of the system for the treatment of juveniles, is what we are doing about — and I have in front of me the Chief Constable's report for 1988 — what we are actually doing, not only for looking after them once we have caught them, what we are doing about the detection of crime and prevention. Is it going to work in preventing further juvenile crime? I am sure the taxpayers of the Island will be interested in that and, according to the record I have in front of me as quoted, 'Crime, juveniles — of detected crime 362 juveniles were responsible for 778 offences, 22.4 per cent. of total, compared with 345 juveniles being responsible for 799 crimes in 1987'. I believe, Mr. President, that we all will support this modernisation of all our criminal control, correction et cetera, but I feel, Mr. President, that we are getting to the attitude now, as they have got it across in certain areas, which has not done anything to actually help to prevent the crimes or stop people going back to crime. I believe, Mr. President, what they have got is they are claiming that the soft option will solve the problem if we give better facilities and we give more staff. Fine, but the taxpayer has a right — and he is paying for this — to know will it help to reduce the amount of juvenile crime in this Island. Mr. President, nothing I have heard so far will do that. I have heard the member whose area is responsible for this about the new facilities needed and I agree with him, the modernisation, but I would like somebody in this hon. Court to indicate to me and the members who have to go back to the public, and, I hope, the person who moved this resolution, that he is assured that once these facilities are built for the next Government, because it will not be finished by this one, when the policy is projected then — and we have had several changes, as the member for Rushen has pointed out, on policy in this area — that will lead to reduction; the better treatment we are giving will lead to a reduction of the money we are expending, will lead to a reduction in the amount of juvenile crimes in the Isle of Man. 'Hopefully, that will be the object of everyone, of getting them into this correction unit and getting them back into society. But, Mr. President, let me say what is going on this morning on this item of capital expenditure just tells me we are trying another theme on the same old tune. Let us get some more facilities as we have done. Mr. President, I think the taxpayer has a right to be indicated to, having agreed to this expenditure, that we will see an improvement not only for the juvenile offenders but for the taxpayer in general of less crime being committed by juveniles in the Island. Mr. President, I believe that is the situation, we have a just right to include in this debate and, Mr. President, I do not honestly believe that after we spend this money we are going to actually achieve that.
Mrs. Hannan: Mr. President, I do not think anybody can give any such guarantee, Mr. President, for the simple reason that we are all human, we are all
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved T50 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 different, and what I would hope, Mr. President, is that with the support such as this — this is only the capital expenditure — but also with the support of personnel, because that is the most important part of providing any sort of building — by locking people away it does not solve the problem — and I would hope that all taxpayers would appreciate such a facility and also appreciate such personnel, such support, reported, for any parents, any family, that had problems with their children. I know, and I am sure every member of this hon. Court knows, of children, of young people, that have re-offended over the years and it does not matter what support is given to the family, what support is given to the child, what support is available, that person will go ahead and re-offend again. I would hope that by the new thinking that we are not going to just lock people away. It does not matter whether they are young, whether they are old, I would hope that we can invest in our people so that everyone can fulfil their life to the absolute full, and I would hope that in future we do not have people going along and committing small crimes and appealing to go to prison for an extended length of time because they are so unhappy in the community which we have created. So I would hope, Mr. President, that this will help young people and also help their parents and also help the taxpayers of the Isle of Man. We must invest in our people but also, by creating a more free enterprise society, we also create difficulties for lots of our people.
The President: The minister to reply.
Mr. Cain: Mr. President, the number of people who have spoken in terms of... reflects the interest, quite properly, which is shown in this very important subject. I think most people generally are supportive but there are one or two people who are expressing concern on one or two fundamental issues, and I think it is right that I take a moment or two just to try and go back to one or two basic facts. The first point, I think, before attempting to deal with any individual comment, is to try and remove any fear that we do not have a co-ordinated policy to deal with what is a very important matter indeed, and I want to go back a few years and just put this into context. In 1986 the Children's Committee of the Department of Education set up a working party because at that time, being quite frank about the matter, the child care policy on the Isle of Man was disorganised and it disorientated, and a working party was set up with representatives from all the bodies tt on the Island who had a particular interest in this area and it included, I remember, certainly Mrs. Pugh from the Isle of Man Children's Home, with which I personally had an association for up to 20 years; discussions took place with the magistrates, with all sorts of bodies. Now, that body reported, and I am not going to go through the details of their report but they did report to the Children's Committee, and the essence of what they said was as follows: firstly, wherever possible all services for children should be provided on the Island, and the remarks made by the member of Council, Mr. Lowey, are ample evidence of the need for that to be implemented in a cohesive fashion. Whether we can guarantee that for 100 per cent. of children remains to be seen, but certainly that is the policy. Secondly, fostering is recommended; as my colleague Mr. Karran has said, the primary purpose of child care is to be effective through fostering and through a
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T51 co-ordinated fostering programme, and this has and is being developed, the number of foster-parents has increased substantially, and here I would like to pay tribute to the men and women who have offered their services and, hopefully, will continue to offer their services and play a very important part in giving a proper means of upkeep to young children who need care and attention, and the vast majority are dealt with in that way. It is fair to say it was also recommended that the National Children's Home create a new residential unit — and this is in 1986 — which would meet the needs of those children who were at that time being sent off the Island on care orders and also those children with emotional and behavioural problems whose needs had not been previously met on the Island, and in essence the building that we are talking about today is setting out to meet that perceived omission and that objective now. It says the unit would have to have two separate and distinct functions — this one will — and the two functions should be separated, and they will be, although there will be communal services in terms of kitchens or whatever. Then it was recommended that Knottfield Childrens Home, which had moved down many years ago from Glencrutchery Road, should provide short-term care for up to seven children. In fact, it has been providing for a number of years short- term care, and that work, which has been recognised by the Department of Education, has been funded by that department, really almost a transit camp; emergency cases which are on the road for fostering, sometimes in the middle of the night, are moved into the children's home and then from there, sometimes after a few days, sometimes after a few weeks, they move on, perhaps back to their parents, perhaps into fostering. So they provided that facility and that was recommended to continue, and that is part of the policy at the present time. And then it went on to recommend that residential services for children with a mental handicap should continue to centre upon Glen Willow hostel but that all children under school age be fostered wherever possible. I went round Glen Willow hostel, it just so happens, yesterday and was very impressed with what I saw. Now, all those proposals, which are recommended as part of the co-ordinated programme, were recommended in 1986 and, since then, a joint committee of representatives from the Department of Education, the D.H.S.S. and the National Children's Home have been working towards implementation of the recommendations, so there is a co-ordinated policy which has been researched. Now can I, having given those background notes, just refer to one or two particular issues? I would thank Mr. Kermode for his support. The point about the need to keep children on the Island which he was making has been accepted and, I think, brought out since. The hon. and gallant member for Ramsey, and indeed his colleague, naturally expressed their concern about certain aspects of what has gone on in Dalmeny in the past. There is no point in beating about the bush: the way in which Dalmeny has developed since it was opened in its new form has not been ideal — and I have to say that — but with the changes, as have been mentioned, that have taken place and hopefully will continue to take place, the position will improve. The point was made by another speaker, I forget who — I think it was in fact the member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell — as to whether or not I can give a guarantee that Dalmeny will close down in September 1991. I think, given two conditions precedent, President, I can give that guarantee: firstly, that this resolution is passed
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved T52 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 today and, secondly, that there is no delay in completion of the building contract. But it is envisaged at the present time that the work, once completed, Dalmeny and the staff will move to Tromode House. And the issue which was raised by someone else as to whether we were doing this purely for the purpose of extending Ramsey Cottage Hospital — I honestly treat that remark with the contempt that it deserves, and I must say that. The reasons I outlined in the speech that I made at the beginning, Mr. President. Now, if I could turn to the remarks made by one of the members for Rushen, Mr. Corrin —
The President: I wonder if the hon. member could help the Chair? Can you give an indication as to how long you are likely to be, sir?
Mr. Cain: I would hope to be finished within the next five minutes, Mr. President.
The President: I must seek the guidance of the House. Is the House prepared to wait another five minutes before the adjournment? (It was agreed.) Very well. Proceed, sir.
Mr. Cain: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I would just like to say that the issue of overall policy — the question has already been addressed; that was one of the points made by Mr. Corrin. The criticism of Ramsey which he mentioned — I think I have dealt with that. The question of child care policy which he mentioned — can I just say that the main thrust of child care policy is to prevent children coming into care. That is the purpose of child care policy. We have got a policy, it is developing, we have got a dedicated staff not only in terms of trying to co-ordinate with the National Children's Home but also in terms of the quality of the officers that we have down at Tromode. Now, he made one remark which I thought was a little bit emotive, which I find, really, is a little bit away from the truth. He said the truth is not coming out. Now, you can make whatever you like out of a remark like that. I, quite frankly, am not going to respond to that, but I deprecate that sort of remark in this context. Now, he also mentioned, amongst one or two other areas, Mr. President, the issue of security and it is the philosophy of the unit that it should be staff secure and it should not have any locked doors. This is the latest and recommended practice for dealing with juveniles who need care and attention whether they have offended or they have got behavioural problems, and the two are going to be segregated. I must say that. But it is up to the staff; it is the quality of the staff and their experience and their knowledge which is going to be the key to the success of this development, not really the building, although the building is there to provide the framework. It is the quality of the people involved that is the key to this issue. One or two other remarks: the member for Council, Mr. Anderson, paid a tribute to Sister Beryl and I would join in with that tribute — many years of dedicated service. Dr. Orme, piecemeal development policy — 1 reject that point. The question of the use of the prison is an issue which has been developing; it is part of the development of a cohesive child care policy.
Tromode House Community Home — Conversion to a Children's Resource Centre — Expenditure Approved TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T53
And if I can turn to Mr. Bell, I think we have dealt with the points that he has been making. The points made by the Chief Minister — I would just reiterate that in my view — I thank him for his support — I am firmly of the opinion that the key to the successful development of this unit is the quality, knowledge and experience of the staff. I would thank Mr. Lowey, member of Council, for his support for putting the issue in some form of historic perspective, for that is what he did. We are buying the expertise of the National Children's Home; they are recognised to have some expertise in this area but, nevertheless, it has got to be a joint venture, we cannot just leave it to them. The rate of offence was mentioned by the member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney, and, fair enough, it is true the rate of offence in child care was high in the Isle of Man. I have to acknowledge that. In fact I can support that: in 1985 the Island had 7.7 per thousand of the child population in care. This was considerably higher than most country areas of boroughs but it was lower than the rate for London, but Northumberland was 5.2 per thousand, so the basic point made by Mr. Delaney, wherever you get your statistics from, was right. We will wish and we do wish, Mr. President, to reduce the rate of offence. That is the whole... it is one of the primary purposes of this whole new way of treating young children who need care, but I cannot give a guarantee that that is happening. I just cannot. All I can say is that that is a primary objective and I agree with the spirit of what he is saying. I thank Mrs. Hannan for her support and, in the hope that I have, albeit a little bit briefly, attempted to answer all the points, I would ask for the support of the House in moving this resolution.
The President: Hon. members, I will now put the resolution standing in the name of the Minister for Health and Social Security at item 5 in the Agenda to the House. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. It is an appropriate time to adjourn, hon. members, and the adjournment will be until 2.30, when the Court will be privileged to welcome His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor and Lady Jones.
The Court adjourned at 1.10p.m.
WELCOME TO H.E. THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR, AIR MARSHAL SIR LAURENCE JONES, KCB, AFC, AND LADY JONES
The President: Hon. members, the Court will be seating this afternoon in the presence of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor and Lady Jones. Hon. members, please be upstanding for His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor.
The Governor and Lady Jones took their seats.
The President: Your Excellency, hon. members, please be seated. Your Excellency, on behalf of members of Tynwald I welcome you and Lady
Welcome to H.E. the Lieutenant-Governor, Air Marshall Sir Laurence Jones, KCB, AFC, and Lady Jones T54 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Jones to a Court which has its origins in the Scandinavian settlement of the ninth century, a Court which is universally regarded as one of the oldest parliamentary assemblies, and as such institutions vary in their format, it will come as no surprise to you to find it more Nordic in character than other Commonwealth assemblies which have a natural affinity with Westminster. You will appreciate that despite the assemby's antiquity, this is the first occasion a Governor of the Isle of Man has been welcomed to Tynwald by an elected President. While this in itself represents a tiny step in a pattern of evolution in colonial territories first envisaged by Lord Durham in Canada in 1848, its Commonwealth implementation starting in the post-war years of the Second World War, it has been recognised as being symbolic of an advance in the direction of self-government. However interpreted, it enables me for the first time to convey a wholly Manx Tynwald's welcome to you as representative of the Crown in our Isle, a Crown to which we pledge our undivided loyalty. I am convinced that in the days ahead you will find, sir, that the Manx people take pride in their parliamentary institutions and traditions, and at this first sitting of Tynwald in the parliamentary session — happily in your presence — it may be apposite to reiterate the importance of the Legislature, both Tynwald and its branches. The development of executive Government engenders, and rightly so, a certain enthusiasm. However, if satisfactory constitutional development is to be maintained, it becomes increasingly important to both recognise and respect the importance of the Legislature in scrutinising both legislation and indeed Government policy. It is that scrutiny which will ensure a constitutional development which will reflect the needs of our community. I trust, Your Excellency, that on this and other occasions on which you are with us you will be informed and enlightened on the contemporary political concerns of the Island as they are reflected in our deliberations. With that hope may we then, Your Excellency, Keys and Council in Tynwald assembled, welcome you as a personal representative to Her Majesty's parliament in the Isle of Man.
The Governor: Thank you, Mr. President, hon. members, I am grateful for this singular opportunity to address the Court from outside the Bar, but today we are indeed witnessing a new procedure which represents a significant change in the conduct of this ancient parliament. As you, Mr. President, have pointed out, this is the first time Her Majesty the Queen's representative in the Isle of Man has been welcomed by a President elected by the Court: a step of symbolic importance in the history of constitutional development. Although my position in Tynwald is very different from that of my predecessors, I shall continue to share with you the common bond of undivided loyalty to the Crown. In parliamentary democracy the importance of the Legislature is indeed crucial, as the scrutiny of legislation and policy is fundamental to the process of good government. I therefore look forward to listening to the debate this afternoon and indeed on future occasions when I occupy this Gallery. I have been on the Island but a short time, but I am already aware of the lively interest and understandable pride the Manx people take in their parliamentary institutions and traditions. May it always be so. Mr. President, hon. members, my thanks on behalf of my wife and myself for the courtesy and warmth of your welcome.
Welcome to H.E. the Lieutenant-Governor, Air Marshall Sir Laurence Jones, KCB, AFC, and Lady Jones TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T55
The President: Thank you, Your Excellency.
POLICY REPORT 1990 — DEBATE COMMENCED
The President: Hon. members, the Court will now proceed to the business set out on the Agenda Paper and we turn to item 3, hon. members, the Policy Report of 1990, and I call upon the hon. member for Rushen, the Chief Minister, to move the resolution.
Mr. Walker: Mr. President, I beg to move:
That the Policy Report 1990 be received and the proposals and recommendations contained therein be endorsed.
Mr. President and hon. members, this will be the fourth in the series of annual October policy debates which began in 1987 and which have become increasingly important in our parliamentary calendar. The Policy Report which has been produced for this debate and for which I seek support differs in a number of respects from its predecessors, and I hope that members have found it more valuable as a result of the changes made. I have said each year that we would try and improve the document, that we would listen to members' comments and try to meet specific criticisms, and I will refer to the changes that have been made as I go along. One of the difficulties of producing a Policy Report like this once a year, which is circulated some weeks in advance of debate, is that it can so easily be overtaken by external events. The entry of the United Kingdom into the Exchange Rate Mechanism is a good example of what can happen. The possibility of the UK joining the ERM is of course referred to in the report, but it has now happened so we can perhaps be a little firmer in our belief that inflation and interest rates will fall somewhat over the coming year. Another change concerns agriculture where external market pressures have suddenly and quite sharply reduced prices and returns to farmers, so that if we were to be writing the report today rather than a month ago, we would place a greater and slightly different emphasis on agriculture and on the response we would need to make to changing circumstances. Agriculture, Mr. President, is a matter to which I will return later. At this stage I would like to begin by looking at Part 1 of the report which is intended as a general scene-setter and which includes, in Section 5, a number of key policy issues. The first new development to which I should draw attention is Section 2 and that is the 'Central Planning Assumptions'. We have throughout the last four years stressed the need for Government to plan its programmes and activities and it is only in this year's document that the work behind the scenes has begun to take shape in a form which can be presented to Tynwald. Central planning assumptions are an important component in the planning process. What we have done is to determine a number of assumptions about the way in which the Island may well develop over the coming decade. These assumptions
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T56 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 have been communicated to departments and the departments have in turn been asked to plan their activities using the assumptions. These central planning assumptions will also be valuable to the Council of Ministers in terms of assessing departmental plans. Those central planning assumptions that we have made relate to economic growth, population, Government revenues and Government workforce. They are limited in range and they are inevitably somewhat arbitrary. In future years it should be possible to expand the range of assumptions and vary them in the light of further and better information as it becomes available. However, even in their initial and unsophisticated form, they do represent a valuable planning tool and much of what appears later in the document is based to some degree on those assumptions. Section 3 of the report provides a review of the Island's economy in more detail than we have been able to present in the past. The picture over the last four years is, I believe, a very good one. We have seen a rapid growth in national income. Between '85/86 and 1988/89 national income rose in real terms by 41 per cent. Our provisional estimate for 1989/90 suggests a further 7 to 10 per cent. increase, so that the second half of the 1980s has been a period of very rapid progress. We have seen unemployment reduced from 2,500 to under 600 and an increase of about 30 per cent. in the total number of people employed in our Island community. Our Annual Earnings Surveys are a recent development but they show growth in earnings over the last two years and we can be sure that earnings have risen sharply since 1986. Certainly the number of claimants of family income supplement has diminished significantly over recent years. Section 3 of the report provides a wealth of information about the way the economy is peforming and that information includes some useful pointers about individual sectors. The pre-eminent positions of finance and manufacturing are confirmed, as are the relative decline of our traditional industries, so that the economic profile of the Island can be seen to have altered quite radically. Looking to the future, our central planning assumptions about the economy suggest further annual growth in real terms in national income of 6 per cent. per annum and an increase in national income per head of about 5 per cent. per annum. Those assumptions are based on a slightly cautious view of our past performance. We should, however, be alert to the possibility of future recession. Historically our peformance has been closely related to what has happened in the United Kingdom. When they have gone into recession, we have followed and often have experienced more severe problems than they. The United Kingdom economy has been showing signs of slipping into recession again, with rising unemployment, high inflation and interest rates. Within our own figures we can see an increase in unemployment over the last two to three months, largely attributable, I believe, to the significant lay- offs at Ronaldsway Aircraft Company. We can also see a reduction in the monthly average number of job vacancies and a reduction in the number of planning applications. These may be early signs of difficulties that we may well be facing over the next year or two. However, our economy is less dependent on the United Kingdom than ever it has been before and we believe we have a better opportunity of avoiding the worst effects of a recession in the United Kingdom. We remain cautiously optimistic about the future but over the coming year or so we will have to be particularly alert to any changes which suggest that economic
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T57 growth is being curtailed. The Island's standard of living and future Government services depend on economic growth being maintained, and if we are to have a degree of recession imposed upon us, then we will need to have early warning of that so as to be able to adjust our planning. Section 4 of the report discusses population. The current best estimate of resident population is about 68,000, although it is necessary to add to that number those who are on the Island for a short period on work permits. The figure of 68,000 is deduced from a number of indicators but we will have a definite figure some time next summer following the census in April. As regards the future, in our central planning assumptions we have suggested the population will increase by about 1 per cent. per annum over the coming decade. And that would take us to a population of something like 75,000 by the turn of the century. Our expectation is that the increase will tend to be made up of younger, economically active people who will participate in the economic growth that we are assuming. This means being able to offer our own young people a range of attractive job opportunities which will encourage them to stay on the Island or return to the Island after higher education. And it means that where there is net immigration, it is an immigration of younger people attracted by the job opportunities which are created. We have had a very adverse imbalance in our population with a preponderance of elderly people. We believe that the position has improved over the last few years and we will be looking closely at next year's census results to see if that can be confirmed. It is important, if we are to have a a vibrant dynamic economy, that we have a vigorous and active population and that this Island does not become a disproportionately attractive place for people to retire to. We have built that general approach into our central planning assumptions and are anticipating that the 75,000 population of the year 2,000 will have an increased proportion of younger people of working age and of school age. In this year's Policy Report we have included a new section, that is, Section 5, which identifies for special consideration a number of what we have described as `Key Policy Issues'. These are pushed to the fore for special attention because they are issues which we within Government see as warranting a particular emphasis in the short to medium term. I have already mentioned economic growth and the way the economy has expanded ove recent years. That should not blind us, however, to the general position which is that we are still significantly behind the United Kingdom in terms of national income per head of population. That needs to be remembered when we are comparing our standard of living and our services with those in the United Kingdom. We need to have realistic expectations, and more importantly, we need to get our national income up to United Kingdom levels at least. The need for economic growth remains the key issue for this Island and the key issue facing, I believe, members of Tynwald. If our people are to have the standard of living that they deserve and the range and quality of public services that they desire, then we have got to have growth, and we will be conferring with the different economic sectors on how that might best be pursued. We should recognise that growth will be fairly elusive if the United Kingdom, or more importantly, the world goes into recession. We have to continue to make resources available, both revenue and in capital,
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T58 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 to stimulate and sustain growth and to ensure that the public services and infrastructure needed by an expanding economy are provided. The second key issue which is identified in Section 5 is the question of external influences. We have always been aware that the Island, as a small community, is susceptible to external events, and we have tended to look to the United Kingdom as the most important of those external influences, and that situation is very clearly changing. Increasingly the Island is concerned with international business beyond the United Kingdom and increasing changes in the United Kingdom and in the Island are being dictated at a European or other international level. The growing influence of the European Community developments is particularly obvious. The Constitutional and External Relations Committee of Executive Council reported earlier this year and indicated that a further review of how we maintain our scrutiny of Community developments will be required, and that review will take place during the coming year. In addition we have said that in our external marketing of the Island it will be important to place particular stress on the Island's determination to safeguard its reputation by encouraging good quality business. In an increasingly competitive world market, quality and reputation will be vitally important ingredients in our appeal. We have singled out from the legislative programme the Employment and Trade Unions Bills, and we have done that because they are a comprehensive package in their own right. They cover an area of social legislation which is deficient at present and they represent a culmination of a very important exercise begun by the Social Issues Committee almost three years ago and endorsed by Tynwald in April of '89. The legislation is intended to provide a fair balance of rights and responsibilities for employers and employees, whilst having regard for the interests of the community. I have no doubt that if we can deliver this legislation this session we will have done a tremendous job for the Island, and that achievement will be one of the things for which this House of Keys will be remembered. Housing of course remains at the top of everyone's list of priorities and is therefore included in our key policy issues. Growth in population has been an inevitable consequence of economic expansion, and that has of course increased the demand for available housing. The situation has been compounded by property inflation, high interest rates and the diminishing average size of families. Mr. President, housing is never easy. But we can demonstrate that the Island's housing situation is better than that of our neighbours. Compared to the United Kingdom, with its higher national income per head, we do not have the UKs problems with homelessness, nor are our housing waiting lists as long. We can boast a better record of new construction and we have far more generous housing assistance arrangements. We have had to recognise the long lead-in time for housing initiatives to come to fruition. But we have responded vigorously to the demands for housing, initially in terms of first-time buyer housing and public sector sheltered housing. The private sector has geared itself up to a level of house-building activity that this Island has not seen since the early 1970s, and we are now switching the emphasis of housing policy toward more public sector construction, as it is in this area that we find those who are now in greatest need of housing support. The Department of Local Government, in co-operation with various local housing authorities, is working on an ambitious programme of new construction and we
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T59
have allocated £7 1/2 million per annum for each of the next five years to support capital funding of public sector housing. This is additional to the £3 million per annum set aside for the House Purchase Scheme and the funding being provided to assist with housing improvements. We are also looking at the House Purchase Scheme and the Housing Improvement Scheme to make sure they are still relevant and directing help to where it is most needed. When we consider the very substantial subsidies that already exist in support of housing on this Island, both in the public sector in terms of rents below market value and in the private sector in terms of tax relief on mortgage interest, there is probably no service, apart from health and perhaps education, which is more costly to Government than is housing. We are proposing in our three-year revenue programme and five-year capital programme to increase significantly the proportion of Government resources that are devoted to housing. We have made it clear in the Policy Report that the report on housing will come before Tynwald next month, and I believe the resultant debate will give members the opportunity of a full review of current policy and future options. At this stage, therefore, I would simply confirm our recognition that housing remains one of the Government's top priorities and that a further substantial infusion of resources into housing is planned. Two other matters which have been singled out for special treatment in the key issues in Section 5 of the report are education and infrastructure and environment. I think the point about education is in fact quite a straightforward one. It is simply that we owe it to our young people and to the future of the Island to ensure a high standard of education and we must preserve our margin of superiority over United Kingdom education results and must invest fully in the initiatives and changes being introduced to upgrade the UK educational system. Much is happening in this area with G.C.S.E. and National Curriculum and revision of 'A' level systems and so on. There are very significant resource implications in these changes if they are to be done properly. We have consistently committed ourselves to education and training as a way of improving the Island's performance and quality of life. We have to find the resources necessary to invest in the young people who are this Island's future. Our programmes of revenue and capital expenditure do just that. As regards environment and infrastructure, these are areas of under-investment in the past, partly because of the lower profile in times past that environmental matters had and the few serious environmental problems that we have experienced. It is also no doubt in part explained by our relatively low national income per head. With increased awareness and increased affluence, the under-investment in this area will need to be remedied. That is a long-term strategy and it is dependent upon the Island maintaining its economic progress. But over the next 10, 20 or perhaps even 30 years we must be prepared to increase our annual investment in these areas and continue the re-building of our infrastructure and the 'Greening' of this Isle of Man. Mr. President, Section 5 of the report highlights what we have seen as the key policy issues. I have no doubt at all that other members would construct the list differently and add and subtract particular items. Certainly the list in Section 5 is not exhaustive, in the sense that other issues such as health, transport, constitutional development and so on will continue to be given attention.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced 160 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
I return for a few moments to agriculture. As I indicated earlier, agriculture has emerged in very recent weeks as an area of particular concern. The Island's main products — beef, lamb and milk — have been suffering from low returns and from the farmer's point of view the short to medium-term prospects appear uncertain. The factors which combine to influence agricultural markets are beyond our control and they are dictated by world prices and European Community policy. As an Island we are quite properly supportive of agriculture. Agricultural support from the taxpayer per head of population in the Isle of Man is very much higher than what it is in the United Kingdom. This is a significant burden on the community and we cannot simply commit ourselves endlessly to making increasing sums of money available to the industry without having some regard to its longer term future. What is needed, therefore, is a strategy for agriculture which takes account of recent developments and provides prospects for those efficiently involved in the industry and for longer term stability. Government does have an important role to play in helping to develop an appropriate strategy and that exercise is being undertaken in consultation with the industry itself. In the meantime, whilst the longer term strategy is being reviewed, it is necessary to provide a modest level of short-term support, and some additional funding has already been agreed. What we must not do, however, is simply pour Government money in to make up for the reduction in farm incomes so as to preserve an existing structure and range of products which is inappropriate or not relevant to future demands. (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.) Agriculture is important to the Island but the industry must be prepared to change and Government must be prepared to help with that process, and I do not believe even the agriculturalists, the farming community out there, would thank us just for pouring money in without looking for the real solutions. Part 2 of the report is perhaps the most important single development in this year's document. In Part 2 we seek to set out Government plans and programmes for the next few years as seen from today's perspective. The programme covers revenue expenditure, capital expenditure, manpower, legislation and other matters. They are essentially a snapshot of future plans and they will be modified and varied in successive Budgets and Policy Reports. But they do represent our plans as of today. Now, what is new of course is that those plans are made explicit for a three-year period in the case of revenue, personnel and legislation and for a five-year period in the case of capital expenditure. The Isle of Man Government has never in the past been able to express its intentions so far into the future, and whilst those plans are flexible and need to be flexible, they do represent a broadly based strategy which gives a reasonably clear idea of how we see the Island and the Government progressing and what issues we expect to bring before Tynwald and the branches. I think, Mr. President, I should at this point pay tribute to the departments and their staff for their efforts and co-operation in bringing forward their plans and estimates within the timescales that we set for them. A lot of extra work was placed on their shoulders and it is thanks to their response that we have been able to present provisional estimates for next year some five months earlier than usual and for several further years when we do not normally present such figures at all. Mr. President, I would just like to look at the revenue programme in Section 7 and in there we see that our income and expenditure has grown since 1986/87.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T61
That growth is in real terms and is perhaps best seen in the chart on page 26 where the stagnation of the early 1980s contrasts sharply with the expansion of recent years. Not only has expenditure on services increased in real terms, it has also been possible to build up the Reserve Fund significantly to over £50 million: a ten-fold increase since 1986. The starting point in planning the next three years is our assumption about future growth of Government revenue, and we have assumed an average annual increase in income in real terms of £8 million. Now, clearly that assumption is based on an expectation of continued economic expansion within the Island, and if we are confronted by recession, we may well have to lower those sights. The Government has no intention of increasing personal taxation. Indeed we will be seeking to use some portion of increased revenues to reduce the burden of taxation, and we will also be seeking to make further contributions to reserves. The bulk of the estimated increase in revenue will, however, be available to fund the capital programme and to develop services. We have set out in Appendix II how we expect expenditure to be allocated over the coming three years. The most striking feature in the revenue programme is the expansion of the annual deficiency of the Department of Local Government and the Environment which doubles over the coming three-year period. That increase is attributable particularly to the impact of additional resources that are being ploughed into housing. The lion's share of the funds continues to go to the Department of Health and Social Security, to Education and to the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties. Those three departments account for about two-thirds of our total expenditure. Obviously the spending plans are provisional at this stage and we still have almost half the current year to run and there are, as a consequence, uncertainties about actual expenditure and about income. There are therefore likely to be variations when the estimates are translated into the Budget next April. Our capital spending plans are set out in some detail in Appendix 12, and members will see that the capital programme differs from recent years in two important respects. Firstly, in the past we have tended to be over-optimistic in setting out capital spending plans. In this year's document we have fixed total capital spending at levels which remain ambitious but which are much more realistic. Secondly, we have set out capital spending plans for five years rather than three, and this longer time horizon will facilitate better programming of the schemes. Producing this particular capital programme has been no easy task. We have encouraged departments to plan their activities and capital schemes, and they have done that more thoroughly than ever before. One consequence of this has been some heightening of expectations about what individual departments are going to be able to put in hand in the early years of the programme. Coupled with this has been our revision of total annual capital spending targets, the consequences being that many desirable capital schemes which have been identified by departments in their planning have been scheduled for later years in the programme or, in some cases, will have to wait beyond the five years of the present plans. We have given priority in the capital plan to health service investment, particularly to hospital developments, to new public sector housing, to education, to sewerage and to foul drainage. These are the areas which seem to the Government to warrant first attention. 1 can appreciate that there will be some disappointment within some
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T62 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 departments that other schemes will have to wait but we do need to be realistic about our ability to deliver capital schemes and we need to concentrate our resources and our attentions on priority areas. Having said that, I hope members will comment on the capital programme. If they feel that there should be some change of emphasis before the Budget next April I would be interested to hear their views. I must stress, though, that total annual capital expenditure should not significantly increase and it will not be possible simply to bring forward some items of expenditure from a later year or introduce a wholly new scheme without something having to be removed or to be moved back in order to make way. So if suggestions for changes are made, I would hope that those suggestions will not just name the schemes to be advanced but will also specify what should be deferred. Mr. President, this year for the first time we have proposed a three-year manpower budget. The period since 1986 has seen a very significant increase in Government's workforce, mainly in health and social services and education. This is a reflection of the expansion of services which we have been able to offer, but the recent rate of expansion in staff numbers is not sustainable if we are to avoid an excessive rise in our Island population. We have declared as a policy that future increases in Government employment should be more than matched by increased jobs and incomes in the private sector, and relating this policy to our assumption about future population growth, we have concluded that Government's workforce should increase in future on average by not more than 90 persons a year. We have in fact allowed an increase of 150 persons this year as a transitional stage. We have applied this policy firmly in the manpower budget for the next three years and fine-tuning of the provisional allocation of these staff to priority areas will be an exacting and delicate task in the months ahead and a task for which we will be looking for the support of members of Tynwald. So overall, looking at capital revenue and manpower, the enormous resources needed to sustain the Health Service are recurrent. Our commitment to the service remains absolute, but in providing the resources needed for health it is necessary for us to curtail expansion in other areas and ensure that we are getting value for money from the service itself. Mr. President, the need for the Estimates Green Book and the estimates debate each March has been increasingly questioned as the October policy debate has grown in stature. This year, because we have been able to set out our provisional plans and programmes in this document, the purpose of an estimates debate in March is particularly questionable and accordingly we are proposing to dispense with the March estimates debate and the Green Book. In Section 10 and Appendix 14 of the report we deal with the legislative programme, and again for the first time we have prepared a programme with a three-year timetable, an ambitious programme, particularly in year one, and it will be necessary for the branches and for departments to work with commitment if the programme is to be realised. I have already referred to the Employment and Trade Unions Bills and indicated that they are our number one legislative priority in the coming year, but there are a number of other important Bills which cover consumer protection and safety, the environment, business development and regulation, and law reform. We have not been able to deliver the legislative programme we wished during the last two
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T63 years. Much of the coming year's programme is made up of the Bills which we had hoped to bring forward before this. However, I do hope that members will recognise the value of the Bills in the programme and will deal with them thoroughly and thoughtfully but with reasonable dispatch. Section II of the report brings together a number of issues where Government initiatives are in progress which do not fit within the scope of other sections of the report. Under the heading of 'Constitutional Development' we are looking in detail at the functions of the Governor and the Governor in Council to see if there is any remaining scope for transfering some of those functions either to the Council of Ministers or to the departments. The Constitutional External Relations Committee will be looking at how the 1981 constitutional objective may be further pursued. I have written to members seeking views and I should like to record my appreciation to those members who have replied so far. There have been a number of interesting and thought-provoking suggestions and I look forward to considering those with the Constitutional and External Relations Committee. The section under the heading of 'Management' sets out a number of initiatives and commitments and it will be sufficient for me at this stage simply to confirm Government's determination to pursue value for money and the highest standards of management and efficiency. I think I should also refer to the Quality of Life Survey which is on-going at the moment. We expect to receive the report from that survey before the end of the year and it will be published. It will then be used by the Social Issues Committee as a source of reference in making proposals to the Council of Ministers in accordance with the remit they have been given on how the Island's quality of life can be preserved and enhanced. I am sure that the survey will, in its own right, provide a fund of useful information on the attitudes of the public of the Isle of Man, and that information will be particularly valuable to members of Tynwald. Mr. President, I have discussed Part 1 and 2 of the report. I shall not deal with Part 3 save to say that it brings together in a single source and provides useful background information on the individual services provided by Government. No doubt if any questions arise from what is in Part 3, representatives of the departments concerned can respond during the course of the debate. In Part 4 we have set out a number of proposals and recommendations which flow from the document. Because we are dealing with the whole gamut of Government, the recommendations are inevitably couched in somewhat general terms, but they do serve to highlight the key policy issues discussed in Section 5 and they do seek a general endorsement of the revenue programme, capital programme, manpower budget and legislative programme which we have set out in the appendices. So, hon. members, the Policy Report which is before Tynwald today is a significant advance on what we have been able to present in the past. As well as reviewing the Island's position, it spells out the broad assumptions that we are making in planning for the next few years. It sets out in some detail the way we see our financial and manpower resources increasing and being deployed and charts some ambitious legislative programmes aimed at tackling a wide range of issues. I would stress that the plans and programmes set out in the report represent but a snapshot of what we see as being the way ahead at this moment. There can be no doubt that things will change, developments will occur, and new priorities will
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T64 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 force themselves to our attention. We must be prepared to be flexible and be able to respond to such changes. The proposals in this report are not carved in stone and all will have to come back for more detailed individual scrutiny. When considering the report hon. members should recognise that the proposals are provisional and simply a best assessment of future priorities viewed from today's perspective. It would be unrealistic to expect Tynwald, as a body of individuals with their own views and priorities, to subscribe totally to every item in each of the programme and there is no question of the Council of Ministers taking approval of the report as carte blanche to proceed with everything that is proposed. The report is here for two reasons: firstly, to demonstrate the planning that is going into Government's activities and to give a general assessment of the way we see the Island developing and the general thrust of Government's activities, and secondly, to give members an unfettered opportunity to comment on the programmes that are contained in the report. I am anxious, as I have been throughout this Administration, to secure as broad a consensus on the way forward as possible. I do hope that members will use the opportunity of this debate to endorse our general approach and also to indicate where they consider some adjustment of priorities would be desirable. I believe that we are a listening Government and I undertake to listen to the commitments made in this debate with a view to refining our proposals for 1991/92 before the Budget, so that we can bequeath to the House of Keys that comes after us a programme and an approach which has as wide a support as possible. Mr. President, I am pleased to move the resolution that stands in my name, sir.
Mr. Lowey: Mr. President, I rise to formally second the motion before us, sir, and reserve my remarks.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. President, I listened with interest, as all members did, and read with interest and glee when this document was produced. It is a very much necessary document in a system of Government which has been without it for so long and has managed to struggle through. Mr. President, all members will have this document, obviously, with them. When I turned to the first page I looked at the introduction and I took out three things immediately, dealing with the items: 'an executive summary has been included to focus attention on items of particular importance'. I then went to (3), to the 'key policy issues', and then I looked at the inclusion of a five-year capital and a three- year revenue programme. Having seen that in the introduction, I thought, 'Right, what is in it for all of the community of the Isle of Man?' And members will note from the actual presentation and speech just made by the Chief Minister that not once during that speech did he vary once from the document, and that will actually substantiate what I have to say about a section of the community which we have put a plan for for five years and three years which we have not mentioned. Twenty-five per cent. of our population, hon. members, are above the age of producing wealth; they are retired, they rely on society or money they have made during their working lives, and not once during the speech of the Chief Minister and not once in this document, these 160-odd pages, was this fine policy over the next five years for capital and three years for revenue mentioned. I believe maybe that is a great error, I believe
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T65 it might even have positively been done because we have some magic plan for them outside of this document. And with that, Mr. President, on the desks of members this morning we had a document put out — the first I had seen of this one — 'Department of Health and Social Security, Memorandum to all Members of Tynwald, October 1990', and then it goes on to social security programme improvements for the elderly '89 and '90. So the situation is that even with the document in front that we have been given this morning, there is nothing projected in the policy of this Administration for the pensioners of the Isle of Man, this large group of people which we refer to from time to time. In the document produced on your desks this morning it says at the back 'general improvements' and it mentions things like Christmas bonus, television licence refunds — items, Mr. President, which you and I know and everyone else in this Court knows have had to be, shall we use the expression used in the document, piecemeal. They are there in situ because individual members supported their colleagues of pursuing it on the Floor of this hon. Court, not because of policy, and usually by being objected to by them, whoever they were, the sitting members of the Social Security Department. That is a fact, it is a historical fact. Mr. President, when you go through this document, having read the introduction, you go through to the policy dealing with 17 under which, Health and Social Security, Part 3 identifies. Now, immediately you see that you then of course say, 'Well, this will be under this policy under that particular department'. Surprise, surprise. When you get to that particular section, page 17, you find nothing at all there, no policy at all of what is going to happen in relation to this group of people improving their system of life, their incomes; nothing at all. We talk about homes for them. Well that has been the subject of questions I have raised just before we went into recess. Mr. President, if you look on the same page we come down to the 'Isle of Man National Income at Constant Prices'; all these items — 'Per Capita National Income in the Isle of Man...'. And we heard in the remarks of the Chief Minister about a period of time, and it is referred to in documents here, Mr. President. A 10 per cent. in real terms was produced in one year. That was the last year we had been responsible for. But we all know that the actual revenues to this large group of society I have referred to was not a 10 per cent. increase. So they slipped back in that one year which has been used to show how well we are moving forward, and we all congratulate ourselves, rightly, that we have managed to achieve that. We go on to the 'Executive Summary' and on that summary in item 2 and item 8 you can see, if you read through it, 'The pursuit of a higher standard of living' under (I) 'The preservation of the quality of life, caring for people, environment and heritage'. Well, without a policy for that group of people we cannot be caring for them very much, we cannot be caring at all if we are not prepared to include them in the cake that we are projecting for; there is not much caring about that. We say on (4) in that same page that the Island's economy is very dependent on international influences and there are particular uncertainties about the United Kingdom economy. Well, the Chief Minister referred to that in his speech. If that is the case, then, Mr. President, I would like to know why we have not got a policy for these people who totally, virtually, depend on United Kingdom policy, because, as we hear, our social security system, outside of our supplementary, is based on
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T66 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
what the British Government puts down for their people and we automatically follow. So if there is an uncertainty, and it certainly appears in this document, I am concerned and you should be concerned because are we going to leave them on the whim of what happens in Great Britain and the political influences there? It seems so, Mr. President. If you turn over the pages we talk about the average weekly earnings. We know on the subject I have just talked about the pensioners of the Isle of Man who have been tied to reciprocity have actually gone backwards in real terms of what they can buy in their pensions, and we know that of their counterparts in Britain, and that has never been disputed because of the change in policy of going to a percentage rather than the real cost of living. As you go through the document you go right through and you get to the section it is items actually 76 and 77, and here we deal with UK policy: 'The Island's Social Security system is heavily influenced by the United Kingdom because of the reciprocity agreement'. Well, having spoken about that, Mr. President, the uncertainty in Britain is not only the economy, it is who is going to run that country when the election has to be called in the next 18 months, and I do not want to see, without having a policy of improving the lot of this 25 per cent. of the population, leaving that to the raffle of the British electoral system that they are all disputing at the moment. I believe we should make sure the names are in the pot and that something is going to come out of it for them, whoever wins that general election. We move on to a section dealing with, in Part 2, central planning assumptions and I quote from 2(2): 'A set of initial planning assumptions were communicated to Departments to assist in the preparation of the estimates and programmes which appear in this report'. Well, that might have been done with the best will in the world, Mr. President, but it seems that somebody did not include this group of people either when they came back for the estimates and for the policy which was communicated to the department concerned; there is nothing there at all. In 2(3): 'A number of features about the Central Planning Assumptions and their use are important:-'. Mr. President, there is nothing surer, the importance of planning. What is going to happen if we do have a recession? As in the past we have found in this hon. Court when we wanted extra money for the pensioners of the Isle of Man it has been said the money is not available. So when we do not plan it now and we go into recession in Britain or we follow, even to a lesser degree, we are going to have more difficulty in finding the funds necessary on which to be able to supply what members will be calling for after the next general election in 12 months' time. Mr. President, we heard this morning from one minister who rightly identified where the Chief Minister has said this will be subject to amendment. We know very well from the Minister actually for Industry this morning, as he pointed out at Question Time, at the end of this year it will be someone else's, probably, responsibility, as it will with all the policies contained in this document. But I, and 1 am sure most members here, will not be wanting to sit round hoping that something turns up, like Mr. Micawber, at the end of the next election. If we are going to put this forward as even a part piecemeal document on behalf of all the people of the Isle of Man, I expect this group of people to be included in it, even if we are forced because of circumstances of recession to have to change that policy; at least they should get a mention in it.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T67
When we deal with the Government plans and programmes under 'General' in Part 2 on page 24, we deal with 'Departments have therefore been asked to define their policy objectives and to prepare plans in terms of expenditure, manpower and legislation which are consistent with those objectives. Progress in this area allows Government for the first time to include in its policy report — ' and it goes on to the three-year and the five-year I referred to. Mr. President, how could you possibly not include this large section in that particular section of this document? If that is what we have said to the people of the Isle of Man we have done. Because we know from the questions this morning and from what members have said that certain parts of even the rules on social security benefits are not acceptable to individual members and that needs a change of legislation. So I am saying to the Chief Minister when he asks me, I am saying certainly we have to change certain rules in relation to supplementary benefit and in the item on the lump sum payment, the £7.50 which we have given with one hand to some people and taken away with the other, as my hon. colleague identified this morning in Question Time. That has to be changed and I will not be following the policy in this document at the end in relation to legislation because I consider that far more important than some of the policy pursued here, certainly some we have already embarked on. To follow on, the allocation of finite resources which appears on page 25 — well, they are finite resources, they all come from the taxpayer and the taxpayer has to get value for money, and I believe that 25 per cent. of that population who have paid their taxes all their life and are subject to the hand-outs and the whims of another Government should be included in the finite resources at this stage of the game at least . When we get on to the Reserve Fund I would like to ask as a separate issue but it still covers the same subject, we heard at Question Time this morning that because this money, this Reserve Fund, one part of it, is played on the Stock Exchange, we heard the answer that at least £5 million plus had been lost because of the downturn in the market. So, hon. members, when we put that money into reserve last year, that increased it, in this document, up to £50-odd million, £56 million. That £6 million we put in last year has been wiped off because the international world is not working so well. So the money we put in last year does not exist, it has been written off on the Exchange. But also, hon. members, the Social Security Fund which is referred to at a value of £150 million, I wonder, if you do the same equation, £12 million has been written off that as well, working that same equation on the Stock Exchange, and I believe the situation is that we have to change some of our policy in relation to where we place these funds, because if the worst comes to the worst and there is a Gulf war and there is a downturn on the Stock Exchange, the money we have placed outside of those golden shares will be lost and we will be in some difficulty. So I hope the Minister for the Treasury, who this morning identified that loss on the Stock Exchange in the small period referred to, will be giving something in this policy document to make sure those funds are there should we need them. When we talk about the general programme and we talk about the look that we are a caring, sharing society, we put a programme forward — and all of us endorsed it — we put it forward, the 'Development of a Prosperous and Caring Society'.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T68 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Now, I put this document against that document when I went through it two or three times to look at it and I wondered why the document 'the Caring and Prosperous Society', 'A New Optimism', it was headed, 'Challenges and Opportunities', the problems we identified, why that does not come into line with this. We seem to have forgotten that 'Prosperous' document, and I have it here, and when you read through it, you read policy objectives there, the ones I have just referred to, the new policy objectives; 'A Balanced Approach', it starts: 'Our aim must be to ensure that the management of the economy of the Isle of Man is conducted in such a way as to maximise the standard of living of the population, bearing in mind the need to safeguard the quality of life and overall environment'. Well, Mr. President, that is an overall statement about all the people and all the things in the Isle of Man, we all jumped, and I ask the question again, why in thisl policy document 25 per cent. of the population have been left out. We go op under 'Society', 'A society which allows ample freedom for private enterprise to develop and flourish and encourages the creation of wealth; a society which nevertheless is caring — looking after the weaker members of society to ensure that they get the services and help they need. Caring also to ensure that the prosperity as it develops is shared...'. Well, we know what that means in real terms. After putting this document forward, when we come forward to this long-term programme we do not even give them a mention, we do not even give them a mention that they are going to share anything. Mr. President, not acceptable. I can vote for this document because, as has been identified by the Chief Minister and by anybody else who wants to worry about it, it means nothing and everything. If it happens, if the funds are about, we will be able to do it all in the order as outlined by the Chief Minister. But in reality we are all victims and subject to the circumstances outside this Island, and therefore the document, I believe, is only worth what yoti want to read into it, and I ask that the amendment — I understand members have had it circulated now — I beg to move that amendment: After "That" insert "(1)" and add at the end —
(2) Whereas such report contains no policy for the improvement of payments made to old age pensioners and other deserving persons, Tynwald requests the Council of Ministers to report with such a policy before the presentation of the 1991 Budget.".
I believe if you want to put this document through and you want to embrace everyone for this period of time in the capital and the revenue expenditure, you should include that group of people, and I believe it is not beyond the bounds of the Cabinet, the Chief Minister, to require a policy in relation to pensions and to other benefits to be brought forward before the sitting that deals with the Budget of this Island. I believe that is the least we can expect and I believe that is the least the public expects. Mr. President, if that can be achieved, if the money is there, we can do something. If it is not, we will all have to argue for our corner, as; has been pointed out by the Chief Minister. But some of us, in fact I believe the majority of the elected House, will be fighting that everyone gets a share of from the corner and that is exactly what it means.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T69
I am going to move the amendment standing in my name and I want to do so on the understanding, and I use these figures which are in this document being circulated as the policy document. If you look under page 70, 'Social Security', payments from 1985 in benefits was £52,189,000. In 1990 the payments on those same benefits was £52,673,000, as I understand that document. So there has been no increase there in that five years. The administration cost in that same period of time — it is embarrassing to read it — it went from £1.334 million to £1.962 million. So who are the funds benefitting? Who are the funds benefitting? If you take the circumstances, Mr. President, I believe it is necessary, because of the high employment we have had, because of everything we have said we were going to do, to show more than what we have said, and the best way to do it is by a resolution, as it always has been, there is nothing new about it. Whenever you want to do anything for the pensioners, as my colleague found out when we talked about free buses et cetera, free T.V. licences, you have to do it from the Floor of this Court because there is never ever the appropriate time to do it through policy. I say that time has changed and I believe it should be done in the way I have asked, fo: amendment to this resolution, to get the members to be able to support this document and also support that policy which benefits the 25 per cent. of the population I claim this document has ignored.
The President: Is there a seconder to that amendment? Now I call upon the hon. member for Ayre.
Mr. Quine: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, clearly progress has been achieved over the last three years in making this Policy Report much more meaningful. I think on the whole now it is really quite a good report; it is certainly more informative than it has been in past years. The inclusion of central planning assumptions is an important addition, as of course are the five-year capital and three-year revenue programmes. An important deficiency which to my mind remains — and it is information which I have in the past in another place had access to — what I feel is missing from this report now is a breakdown of expenditure on the basis of programmes of activity, I think this would be helpful to us all, because there are programmes of activity which embrace two, three or more departments, and if we are to look at what has been done in terms of a programme of activity, then I would suggest that it is much more digestible if that is pulled together for us. So perhaps the officers who have done such good work on this will try to accommodate us to some small extent in that respect in the next report. Inevitably with a report of this size there are inaccuracies or, to be tactful, I suppose I should call them typographical errors, perhaps the most startling being the statement that the Department of Local Government and the Environment has a commitment of £71/2 million per annum for new public housing. If in fact they are putting £71/2 million per annum into new public housing, I would be very pleased, but looking at the statement at the back on the capital programme, it is over the full five-year period. What is unfortunate about that of course is that if that is an error — if it is not I apologise to the minister — but if that is an error it has been carried through and picked up by the media; at least one newspaper carried it on the basis of £7 1/2 million a year going into new public housing, and that is
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T70 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 unfortunate. I welcome the proposal to dispense with the annual estimates book and the annual estimates debate. There is more value to be obtained from debates directed at particular problem areas than the present repetitious process. Dare I suggest that we look further at other matters which are routinely placed on the Tynwald Agenda. We have the usual comparison of gross domestic product as between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. On this occasion it is held out that our GDP per head is 83 per cent. off the United Kingdom figure. What concerns me here is that we may not be comparing like with like. I am advised that the data on which our GDP is compiled and the basis upon which the United Kingdom GDP is compiled are somewhat different. So perhaps the Minister for the Treasury could advise this hon. Court as to the basis of the calculation for the GDP in the United Kingdom and here on the Island. We should, after all, be comparing like with like, otherwise there is no point really in having those figures drawn up in a comparative style. Again, GDP is fine for providing a broad-brush measure of the wealth generated, but it says nothing of distribution, and that is the really important issue: distribution, Mr. President. We must not overlook the fact that in 1988 10 per cent. of full-time employees earned £105.69 and the bottom 25 per cent. earned £131.25. Now, the corresponding figures for the 1989 survey were £115 and £140 a week, and according to the Economic Services Division, the statisticians, this represents in real terms a growth of less than 1 per cent. for the bottom 10 per cent. and just 1.1 per cent. for the bottom 25 per cent. So it is all very well for this wealth to be created - and at 10 per cent. last year clearly we are doing exceptionally well in creating wealth — but the fact remains that it is not getting down to the bottom 25 per cent. of our society. (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear). Turning to the related issues of economic and population growth, hon. members are aware of my position. I am convinced that an excessive growth rate is harmful and should and could be regulated, and I am sure the Chief Minister expected me to say that today, as I have been saying it for every year since I have been here. The overheating of sections of the economy has taken place in the last three years, not least the excessive growth in our population, and, as we repeatedly discuss in this Chamber, large sections of our infrastructure are overstretched and services and other support required by our community is being harmed, and more importantly, what concerns me is that social divisions are being created in our society, and that is very, very unhealthy. Mr. President, the situation which has evolved, as one looks back, I think is fairly clear for all to see. Following on from the lean years of the early '80s there has been what I would term an over-reaction in taking off the economic benefits of recent years to a point where severe indigestion has resulted. To try to demonstrate this point I would suggest that we were wrong, in that we should not have thrown — as you would not in point of fact throw — a water bottle to a thirst-crazed man staggering in from the desert. What we should have been doing from the outset was making sure that we had a pace which could be digested, which was healthy. We failed to do that, and I can understand how that over-reaction came about. What I cannot understand and what I cannot accept is that we have failed to redress that mistake in subsequent years. I think it is all the more inexcusable, given that the Administration has failed to follow the recommendations of the Standing Committee of Tynwald on Population Growth and Control of Immigration of 1985.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T71
That report recommended that the expansion of the population be strictly monitored to avoid overstretch and it also acknowledged that the existing infrastructure was then in need of considerable capital expenditure. In other words it could not sustain additional pressures. Very importantly, the recommendation made in that report stressed that there should be a co-ordinated programme targetted at specific categories — and I have underlined this — at a rate which would be acceptable to all concerned. So that was stated, that was made quite clear, in a document put before this hon. Court, but I am afraid it has been ignored. Mr. President, last year I made the point that the economy had exceeded a manageable level of growth and that the unregulated course on which we were set, either by design or by accident, was highly inflationary. I remain of that view and any marginal easing in the pace which may come about this year will be fortuitous. Overheating in sections of the economy is still with us and I believe will remain with us for some time to come. I am sure other members saw a report this week which referred to the easing of the mortgage rates in the United Kingdom and suggested that there is up to a thousand families in the United Kingdom interested in coming to the Isle of Man. Against that backdrop how can that overheating not be with us? Leaving aside speculation for the future, an economic scenario where you have growth of 7 to 10 per cent. fairly constantly over a four-year period in GDP, with unemployment running at 2 to 3 per cent., that in itself is one of the strongest possible indicators that we are in an inflationary period and a very unhealthy inflationary period. I might add that I gave some of these figures to a professional who looked at them and said to me, 'All very interesting', he said, There are some very meaningful figures here, some very useful figures, but there are other figures here which are very much in the category of a lamp-post to a drunken man: they are figures which are designed more for support than illumination.' And I think that is important when you are viewing this report: there are many figures in this report which are selective. They are designed to support certain — and understandably so — to understand different facets of this report, but they are not necessarily designed to provide the illumination that hon. members in this Court would require, and again that is an area which we should be looking at. Mr. President, in this debate three years ago I moved an amendment, which did not carry, calling on Executive Council to take urgent action to ensure a balanced development of the economy and to take measures to protect the social fabric of our community. No such action has been taken, for there is an apparent inability or indifference between, I would suggest, need and greed, and that is why that point has not been taken on board. One of the consequences of this economic population free-for-all is our present acute housing situation. There is much to be said on this matter, but as there is a separate motion on the Agenda I will reserve my submission until then. Suffice it to say that it is bad and getting worse, notwithstanding a sterling effort on the part of some of those charged with trying to come to terms with this problem. However, my concern is not with those charged with coming to terms with the problem, but with those families who, as a result of this housing problem, are suffering real and sustained hardship, have done for three years, and the prospect is that they will have to continue to do so for a number of years to come. My concern
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T72 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 is with those folk. Similarly, turning to another subject, the state of agriculture warrants close scrutiny, but this is also on the Agenda as a separate item. However, I would stress that the commentary on agriculture in this report shows a lack of understanding of farming, and some of the commentary ranges from the superficial to the impractical. Perhaps the measure of the material is the fact that it is inaccurate — liquid milk sales did not decline by 29.5 per cent.; they increased by 21.5 per cent. I do not subscribe to the present programme of commercial planting in so far as it relates to conifers, and again I am sure the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is aware of my views. It is now common knowledge that the large- scale planting of conifers, resulting in the acidification of surrounding land and water, is causing considerable damage to wildlife and vegetation, but the department continues to ignore it, and what prospect is there of an impartial judgement in this matter when the department remains judge and jury in afforestation matters? This has become such an issue in the United Kingdom that there is now pressure to set up an independent authority to regulate afforestation. Over the last five years the department has planted some 1,000 acres of new plantations and all but a minute part being set in conifers, bringing their total holding to some 7,000 acres. May I invite the minister to produce a balance sheet for this afforestation programme, for I fear we are paying dearly to slowly poison hundreds of acres of heathland. Let me make it clear, Mr. President, I am very much in favour of an afforestation programme, very much so, but broadleaf must predominate. I cannot subscribe to the mass planting of conifers which poison the surrounding land and water, even less so when the exercise is a commercial one and the economics are questionable. One of the major issues of the moment is energy conservation, our thoughts in this matter having been crystallised of course by escalating oil prices. There is a paragraph — I think it is at 14.6 of the Policy Report — and it gives a reasonably impressive list of measures which have been or are being implemented to forward the cause of energy conservation. A cursory glance at this list indicates the size of the task before the Government — sufficient to justify a major debate in its own right. However, so far as I am concerned, that will have to be set aside for another date. My concern is the related issue of renewable energy resources, or sources if you wish, which embraces of course a wide field: wind, tide, solar, geo-thermal, bio- fuels — a whole range of matters which could be considered as renewable energy sources. And 1 would simply like to spend a few minutes today to try to advance the case for wind generation of electricity, firstly because it is available to us now, and secondly, because paragraph 14.2 of the Policy Report does not convey the requisite sense of urgency. Over the last three months the wholesale price of crude oil has increased by a hundred per cent. in round figures. The MEA have already expressed the view that electricity charges will increase by 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. before Christmas. Let us not forget that we are almost wholly dependent on oil for electricity generation to the tune of a thousand tons of fuel oil per week, representing in excess of one- third of the cost to the consumer of each unit of electricity sold. Furthermore, we have to look back to only 1985 to see that the oil element in the unit charge was
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T73 half of the unit cost to the consumer. The impact of the price of oil is sufficient reason in itself for Government to quickly, firstly, minimise our energy consumption, and secondly, reduce our reliance on oil-generated electricity. Then there is the all-important environmental aspect. I mentioned earlier that at present the MEA use some 1,000 tons of fuel oil each week. What I did not mention is that this puts into the atmosphere 50 tons of sulphur dioxide, 7 tons of nitrogen oxide, and 3,000 tons of carbon dioxide, and I repeat, that goes into the atmosphere each week. Of course such emissions could be further curtailed by the introduction of higher grade fuel oil, and there was some discussion on that matter this morning, and perhaps more sophisticated filtering equipment, but that would give us substantially higher unit costs, prohibitively so in present market conditions, and again the minister made that point this morning. Over the next few years the MEA will have to gear its production well beyond the present peak demand of 55 megawatts to something approaching a hundred megawatts. That is according to information conveyed to me in a letter from the minister. Unless dependency on oil for the generation of electricity is substantially lessened, the present high level of atmospheric pollution will dramatically increase, along with pollution-containment measures and the consequential cost of those measures. There will remain the unknown factor of the variation in fuel costs over the next few years. Now, this is a situation we can ill afford, as the Island is already amongst the most costly producers of electricity in Europe, and not surprisingly so, given our scale of operation. Most forms of renewable energy are, for technical or financial reasons, beyond our reach at this point in time, but this is not the case with wind generation. There are now in excess of 4,000 electric-generating wind.turbines operating throughout the world and Denmark is now producing more electricity by this means than the Isle of Man consumes. Development is far beyond the development stage; in some countries wind-generation is a solid plank in their energy-generation policy. Wind turbines are now technically sound and economically viable and warrant being part, albeit a relatively small part, of our energy-generation policy. A four-turbine wind farm, that is to say, a group of four 20 to 30-metre high windmills, could achieve a peak output of one megawatt, with an estimated output equating to 1 to 2 per cent. of last year's consumption. To put it another way, six four-unit wind farms placed throughout the Island could contribute some 10 per cent. of present electricity requirements. From the environmental perspective it would obviate the need to add to the present level of MEA-created pollution for a number of years — a matter — in itself of great importance to us. The economics of electricity generated by wind turbines are very attractive: a four- unit wind farm of the type of which I have spoken would involve capital costs in the order of £750,000, with marginal on-going maintenance costs. Importantly, there is no requirement for Government or the MEA to take on this commitment; private enterprise are better placed to operate such wind farms, provided a capital grant and/or loan facility is made available, coupled with a requirement, of course, that the MEA purchase all electricity generated. By way of example, I am reliably informed that a four-unit wind farm could be set up on the basis of a 30 per cent. grant, a 9 per cent. loan repayable over seven years, with an anticipated minimum life span of 15 years. Such an arrangement would be in line with EC incentive schemes for such enterprises, not to mention schemes which we provide under our own
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T74 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
industrial grant and loan arrangements. However, to accommodate wind-generated electricity there would be a need to provide an appropriate legislative framework. There must be a long-term obligation on the MEA to purchase all such electricity which is generated, along with provisions covering connections for the feeding-in of such power to the Island grid. After all, the MEA has a monopoly, and privately owned wind farms cannot play their part unless there is a proper base for the acceptance of the electricity generated. Such legislation would need to embrace all non-fossil fuel-generated electricity, not just that from wind generation. The United Kingdom Electricity Act 1989 creates a non-fossil fuel obligation on public electricity suppliers under which a percentage of such suppliers' power must be generated from non-fossil fuels. In addition, a levy is attached to public electricity suppliers to cover the cost of obtaining non-fossil fuel-generated electricity. It would be inappropriate for the Isle of Man to go to this extent. It would suffice, as I have indicated, if an arrangement was established which provided grant and loan assistance and a requirement for the MEA to buy in electricity generated at a set price, say, 6p per unit, as is the case in the United Kingdom. There could be resistance from environmentalists of course to the concept of wind farms, in that they could be considered to create an intrusion into the countryside. It is my belief that such opposition could be minimised by the containing of wind farms to small undertakings carefully placed to minimise their impact, and that is why I have spoken of six four-unit wind farms. The farming community would benefit if the ground rent for a four-unit wind farm in the United Kingdom is in the order of £2,000 per annum. Be this as it may, the issue is one of selecting the lesser of two evils. I repeat: the issue is one of selecting the lesser of two evils — severe atmospheric pollution with its obvious health implications and consequential costs, or a devaluing of the landscape in a small number of areas in the countryside. I have no difficulty in coming to terms with that equation. Mr. President, I would like to commend to the Minister for Industry that he establish a five-year programme geared to the production at the end of that period of 10 megawatts of electricity from wind generation. Further, that such programme be placed in the hands of private enterprise with support from Government by way of grant and loan assistance, coupled to a requirement for the MEA to purchase all electricity so generated at a set unit price. Importantly, that the matter of providing the requisite legislative framework be addressed as a matter of some urgency. Mr. President, if I may conclude on one matter which I feel is of vital importance, particularly at this point in time, and that is constitutional development. I am sure hon. members are aware that I am no torch-carrying Nationalist with a capital 'N'; indeed I did not give the issue a mention in my manifesto, albeit it was discussed of course at requisition meetings. I am a nationalist with a small 'n', with a conviction that the people of this Island should control their own destiny and affairs with pride in our own history and culture. That to me is the nationalism to which I subscribe. Not surprisingly, I entered this hon. Court recognising the resolution of 1981 as an acceptable starting point. I also accepted that with the advent of so-called ministerial government the running-in of and developing of our movement towards greater independence would be in the hands of the Chief Minister.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T75
What has been achieved in terms of constitutional development? Some minor changes affecting the internal workings of Government; some of these identified with paragraph 11.3 of the report. But in the context of controlling our own destiny and affairs — little or nothing. The basic position remains the same: we dance to the tune of the United Kingdom Government, to the Home Office at that, not even the Foreign Office, and we have again all too often seen our interests subordinated to theirs on a number of occasions. I am convinced that the vast majority of people of this Island wish to see substantial constitutional development, Chief Minister. They wish to see changes effected which put the Manx people in the driver's seat, changes which put control of our destiny in our own hands, unlike certain members of this hon. Court who are more concerned with cosmetic changes. There is a need for this hon. Court, in my view, to re-state its constitutional objectives and to determine more specific objectives to advance the Isle of Man to the status of a full self-governing territory, which of course was the essence of the 1981 resolution. This can be achieved only by the transfer of effective authority from the United Kingdom Parliament to the Manx parliament, and I would suggest that we should serve notice on the United Kingdom Government of our intention to do so. This should create no great difficulties: the United Kingdom Government have given a commitment to the United Nations to help us towards independence. The starting point is to have responsibility for our affairs transferred from the Home Office to the Foreign Office. There are two fundamental objectives to be achieved, Mr. President.
The President: I wonder if the hon. member could help me. Will you be continuing for a long time, sir, or a limited time?
Mr. Quine: Mr. President, I think about five or seven minutes.
The President: Would the hon. member object, then, to terminating his address at this point and resuming after we have a break?
Mr. Quine: No objection, Mr. President, if hon. members would bear with me and allow me to start at the beginning of that section. 1 would not want to lose the momentum.
Mr. Kermode: We would not want you to lose the momentum either!
The President: Certainly the hon. member's wishes will be met. Hon. members, in his introductory remarks to this resolution the Chief Minister said that things may change, developments may occur. One thing that does not change here is the tradition to have a tea-break in the middle of the afternoon. (Laughter) So, hon. members, the Court will now adjourn for tea until 4.35 p.m. His Excellency and Lady Jones have agreed to join us for tea in the Millennium Conference Room, and, hon. members, would you please be upstanding while His Excellency and Lady Jones withdraw.
The Governor and Lady Jones withdrew.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Commenced T76 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
The President: Thank you, hon. members. The adjournment: 4.35.
The Court adjourned at 4.02 p.m.
PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN OF TYNWALD COURT
The President: Please be seated, hon. members. Hon. members, you will recall that in the process of our deliberations I had circulated to you a note saying that there had been a request for a photograph, which if the Court agreed to, could actually be taken at this stage of our proceedings. Everything is in situ except some members and would you agree that if we can get the members into the Court that photograph be taken. (It was agreed.) Thank you. Would the messengers please act as 'whipper-ins'. I have to tell hon. members that regrettably Mr. David Cretney was taken ill in the course of our proceedings and has returned home where he is quite happy. Now, learned Secretary, is in fact everyone present now that is likely to be ? Can we get on with it ?
A photograph was taken of the Court in session.
MEMORIAL OF CASTLETOWN GOLF LINKS HOTEL (1986) LIMITED RE PROPOSED LANGNESS GOLF COURSE PLANNING APPLICATION — PROCEDURE
The President: I feel I am really imposing on the hon. member for Ayre but, hon. members, normally at this time we would consider petitions and memorials set out on our Agenda Paper. There are no such items on our Agenda today. However, since the Agenda was settled a memorial has been presented on behalf of Castletown Golf Links Hotel (1986) Limited seeking leave to appear and be heard on the inspectors' report and the letter of decision in respect of the planning application for approval in principle for the provision of an 18-hole golf course at Langness, and that memorial has been circulated to hon. members. The procedures here in Tynwald are governed by our own Standing Orders with respect to memorials and the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1981. The memorial, though presented after the Agenda was circulated, is technically in order in respect of our Standing Orders. However, the effect of Section 2(2) of the 1981 Act is of some importance to hon. members in determining whether they wish to hear the memorialist and should perhaps be outlined now. I am advised that the effect of the subsection is that the planning decision, whether the application is granted or refused, must be laid before Tynwald. Where the application has been granted, the decision may be annulled by Tynwald at the sitting of Tynwald at which it is laid or at the subsequent sitting. In this case the planning application has been refused and Tynwald has no
Photograph Taken of Tynwald Court Memorial of Castletown Golf Links Hotel (1986) Limited Re Proposed Langness Golf Course Planning Application — Procedure TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T77
statutory competence to annul a decision to refuse planning permission. This may colour the views of members in determining whether or not to hear the memorialist who evidently wishes to present arguments against the decision to refuse planning permission. I understand, however, that counsel for the company would prefer to be heard at the November sitting. Given the wishes of the counsel for the memorialist, I would suggest we defer consideration of the matter to the November sitting of the Court. Would the Court agree? (It was agreed.) Thank you, hon. members.
Mr. Cannan: Just one point of clarification, with respect, Mr. President. I thought that perhaps at our last session we had agreed to take memorials and petitions straight after lunch. I thought that had been agreed.
The President: You will appreciate that this has been rather a different day from the point of view of procedures and there are certain circumstances that have intervened that have made that procedure a little difficult today, and in consequence I would ask the approval of the Court in dealing with it in this way, and if the hon. member will accept that apology, if you like, I will be happy to see that it is advanced in the November sitting.
Mr. Cannan: It is not an apology, Mr. President, that I was looking for, it was just for guidance for the future, sir.
The President: The guidance for the future will be, as you have rightly said, sir, taken immediately after lunch.
Mr. Cannan: Thank you.
POLICY REPORT 1990 — DEBATE CONTINUED
The President: The hon. member for Ayre.
Mr. Quine: Mr. President, I am convinced that the vast majority of people of this Island wish to see substantial constitutional development. They wish to see changes effected which put the Manx people in the driver's seat, changes which put control of our destiny in our own hands. There is a need for this hon. Court, in my view, to re-state its constitutional objectives and to determine more specific objectives to advance the Isle of Man to the status of a full self-governing territory. This can be achieved only by the transfer of effective authority from the United Kingdom Parliament to the Manx parliament, and we should serve notice on the United Kingdom Government of our intention to do so. This should create no great difficulty. The United Kingdom Government has given a commitment to the United Nations to help us towards independence. The starting point is to have responsibility for our affairs transferred from the Home Office to the Foreign Office. There are two fundamental objectives to be achieved and both represent well- trodden ground; they are not novel in context. Firstly, assumption by the Isle of
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T78 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Man Legislature of authority to enact all legislation affecting the Island save for legislation expressly reserved by the Isle of Man Legislature for the United Kingdom Legislature: in effect a reversal largely of the present situation. And secondly, an assumption by this hon. Court of responsibility for advising the Crown on all matters affecting the Isle of Man. Achievement of these objectives, over whatever period of time should be determined, would create a direct relationship between the Crown and the Isle of Man. Unquestionably this would obtain for the Island the status of a full self- governing territory. Yes, there would be a cost, but on a full balance sheet the burden may not be as great as that presently imposed upon us. In adressing this question we should note the increasing subordination of the United Kingdom Legislature and Government to European Community institutions, which, given our present constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom, inevitably draws the Isle of Man in the same direction without any real say in the issues concerned. Mr. President, clearly this is an issue which must be debated at length by this hon. Court in the very near future. Like so many hon. members, I find a great deal of merit in this Policy Report, and I repeat, a great deal of merit, and I agree with the Chief Minister that unquestionably much has been achieved through the honest endeavour of many people. Along with the Chief Minister, I pay tribute to those good people. However, supporting the motion on the Agenda Paper is another matter as this calls not only for the Policy Report to be received but that the proposals and recommendations contained therein be endorsed. This is tantamount of course to saying that the report be approved. It cannot be received if you qualify it by saying the proposals and recommendations are endorsed; in effect we are approving the document. But what proposals? Those in Part 5 or those many other proposals scattered throughout the report? For this reason I would like to move the amendment which has been circulated in my name, the effect of which is that the report simply be received. In doing so, I am conscious that this report only scraped home last year, for what I believe was this and some other difficulties. Mr. President, I have pleasure in moving the amendment which stands in my name and which I trust has been circulated to hon. members:
That all words after "received" be omitted.
If my amendment carries I will vote for this report to be received and acknowledge the good work that is in that report. If my amendment does not carry, I will be obliged to vote against it, as I am sure other members will feel similarly so disposed. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Mann: Mr. President, after four years of self-inflicted sabbatical (Laughter) it was refreshing this morning to come and see how our Government had developed in the meantime. If you could just bear with me a moment, I think I would like to describe the image that this Government presents to the people of the Isle of Man, because I think we are discussing this document and these proposals as if we are in isolation, as if all we are doing is congratulating ourselves on what has been done and what is going to happen and the people outside are looking at it in an entirely different
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T79 way. So let us first of all, as I think I have a closer communion with the outside world than any of you at present — it will not last long so I will get it over — the perception of ministerial government as it has developed over the last four years, I would say, is very high and very big on titles, on egos, on salaries, and very low, in the public image, on competence, and if I might add my own personal touch, on sensitivity to criticism and true parliamentary opposition, but qualified also by people's constant reference to the squandering of resources that has occurred in the last four years. • Now, that may or may not be true; I am talking about the public perception, and if it is a false impression, then this House has failed hopelessly in getting its message over to the people of the Isle of Man. The people are seeing and have seen over the last few years thousands and millions of pounds being, as they see it, squandered, because at the end of the time all they see is the administration growing larger and the actual and directly to the individual to be very small indeed, not only the actual and to the individual in monetary terms — although I have to qualify of course that of tax reduction, which of course was welcomed when that occurred — but from the departmental production of aid to individuals, that aid appears to have decreased rather than increased and the only thing that has increased is the size of the administration, and if you look from department to department, the same story comes through, as has been seen this morning, or this afternoon earlier by another speaker. If you look at Agriculture and Fisheries, Social Security and so on, it is the administration that has absorbed most of the money, not aid to the people who really need it. So in that context I would like to look at this document because, like the previous speaker, the resolution before us, in parliamentary terms, is very worrying indeed and perhaps the previous speaker had not looked at it quite thoroughly enough, although after that length of time I would have thought he should have done; with apologies, sir. But this report deals largely with a very wide area of Government activity But what the resolution should be saying is that what this Government, this Council of Ministers, is planning to do in the next 12 months should be put before this Court clearly, and we should say whether we approve or we do not approve. The rest of this document should be put to one side. It should be a discussion document. It should not be a policy document at all. It should be a discussion document for advice, our advice as to what is intended. If you actually vote for this resolution as printed, as the previous speaker has said, you are actually endorsing the proposals, agreeing to them. agreeing to the fact that from this moment onwards we do not discuss a single item of expenditure until the next Budget, and in the years to come the arrogance of this is quite incredible, that in fact we set down expenditure levels over the next three to five years. The impression one gets, I am afraid, is that this report was written by officials for officials and, by some divine right, breeds officials: a hundred a year in good years and nearly two hundred a year in bad years. If you look at the Executive description of political aims, I would suggest that the sixth form of the Douglas High School could write them better than this, at least with some inspiration of where we are going. The fact is of course there is no strong political aim or vision binding any of the members of the Council of Ministers, except, I am afraid, the cynical view that it is personal survival. There
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T80 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 may be other bonds but certainly not positive political ones and as a result you have the lowest common denominator of policy and this of necessity is sponsored by officals and not politicians. So I think we ought to look very closely at these documents. Firstly, I would like to just look backwards a little way, certainly when you look at what is being produced at this moment because if you lift what benefit is coming out of this Government in the next 12 months it would be so small it would be on one page. And I must say I looked with interest at the increases in gross national product and which I was pleased to say reached their highest level during the last year of the last Government and then fell dramatically in the first year of this Government 9 per cent, and I immediately questioned the description of that rapid development in 1986/7, because the comment was that it created strain within the economy of the Isle of Man. The only strain that occurred was that nobody would believe that it was happening because nobody accepted that it was happening and therein lies a danger of Government's statistics, because that increase in gross national product in that year did not come through into tax receipts until my member for Michael —
Mr. Cannan: Your good friend.
Dr. Mann: — my good friend, right; I am talking to you (Laughter) — was able, with a dramatic increase in taxation revenue, to actually reduce taxation. Now, that of course is one thing that has been noted by the people outside. But we must look at this inter-relationship between Government taxation levels and the gross national product. Although the gross national product is continuing at a very healthy 9 to 10 per cent. a year, a level which to it now seems to have settled, that does not automactically mean that the taxation level based on those figures is going to be what everybody expects it to be, and you have to also look at the subtle change of the base of taxation. The one figure that is not in any of these documents at all is what proportion of taxation levied actually is produced by the ordinary taxpayer. It never was a very large amount and as a result of the quite dramatic changes in taxation at the lower end of the scale — introduced, I quote, by my good friend — the actual taxation base, the actual amount of taxation based on ordinary people's taxation has been reduced even further. So we are more and more dependent on the profitability of companies who actually are responsible for producing most of the half of taxation that is directly levied, and therefore at this moment we all know that we are getting close to a recession in the UK, but the cost levels that businesses have to bear at this moment in the Isle of Man, those costs will increase at the same rate as the United Kingdom, and therefore although we do not appear to see a recession, we do not see these companies disappearing, these companies may well not be as profitable as they were, even if the turnover remains the same. In some cases if the turnover increases, the actual profit margin decreases, so that at this particular moment we may well be finding that the taxation yield from these companies is decreasing, and therefore one should be taking a very, very strong line in holding Government expenditure as far as possible. The increase of Government expenditure during the first three years of this House does appear. I must say I find it slightly difficult to understand, whether it is a straight percentage increase year by year added together in simple terms, or whether it is an actual assessment based on the total compound increase that has occurred
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T81 during these years, but obviously the expenses have exceeded the rate of inflation considerably. Now, if one therefore looks to control Government expenditure now in a far tougher way than has been done in the past few years, if the yield from taxation still is maintained at a high level, that is fine, we can build up reserves still further, because there are matters in these documents that are not referred to financially in any really serious way. One is of course the amount of money put aside for refuse disposal or environmental matters and of course sewage disposal is looked at as if it is disappearing into the future. And sewerage disposal, linked with refuse disposal, is something that has got to be faced up to (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.), and on conservative estimates I would suggest would absorb all of the present reserve in one go; it is all contributed in one go. So there are very strong reasons for actually holding Government expenditure as tight as possible during the next year or two and quite deliberately increasing the amount of funds available for environmental work as soon as possible. But if we also look at the political impact of relationships with Europe. I am not in this way talking about 1992 and I am not talking about our relationship between ourselves and our relationship with our closest member state, that is, the United Kingdom. I am referring to something that I have not read any reference to at all for some time and that is that we see the finance sector as being the prime mover of future income, and so it is. But of course we also should be looking to our relationship with other island communities dotted around Europe, and those communities are in receipt of considerable regional aid and less favoured area aid to boost up their basic industries, and these communities, whether they be in side the United Kingdom or in other European member state countries are and will be competing with us in terms of agriculture, fisheries, in terms of tourism and in terms of education because in those four areas most of the peripheral areas of Europe will be getting substantial grants from the European Community. Now, we are politically and economically in advance of most of these areas, but it does behove this Government to take a responsible attitude to these areas because at some point in the future they will be having to compete and are at this moment competing on equal terms with these peripheral regions. This is probably most thought about in agriculture, but it is also true of tourism and certainly one should be looking at it in terms of education as well. We cannot avoid, in our present relationship, having to face up to open competition with these areas that are supported with these grants, and I think this Government must, in adopting such as this, consider the impact of supporting our own industries to the same extent. You get so often the cry, especially from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 'We cannot do any more. We are doing as much as we can within the European Community. Go away and think about something else'. The fact is that this Government should be going to industry, including the tourist industry, and saying, 'This is what we should be supporting you with, as a regional grant to enable you to compete with areas of Europe on equal terms'. Certainly I will refer to this in the agricultural debate. As far as education is concerned, of course, in competing with similar areas of similar type we have to, as a matter of sheer survival, ensure that examination results and so on are at a higher level than the nearest main Community member, and I am glad to say they are. But the other area in which they should be streets ahead
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T82 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 is in languages, and I am not so sure that we are doing that, whether we are achieving an advanced level in the teaching of languages to compete with equivalent areas in the United Kingdom. I think we tend too much to relate ourselves to the member state, as if we and the member state are of equal significance. We and the member state are not of equal economic significance, but we should be thinking of comparing ourselves with similar areas in similar positions in the European Community where there is free movement of people and goods. I do not want to carry on at great length but there are areas where we are looking at present provision, and this is where I come back to how people's perception of this Government is entirely different to the perception of members gathered here today. In housing I know there is going to be another proposal later on the Agenda, but we either have to accept that proposal or we have to reject it. But in housing, everybody so far has been patting everybody on the back and saying what marvellous things we are going to do, and yet if your constituents are in the same position as my constituents, I can tell you that a proportion, and an increasing proportion, of young Manx people reach the age of wanting to get married, or live together, whichever is the current position, and they find that (a) they cannot get anywhere to rent, or if they can get anywhere to rent they cannot afford the rent, or if they go to purchase a house they are told to politely go away as they could not, even with two salaries or wages, ever achieve the minimum requirement of the Government housing scheme. There has got to be a new initiative and that new initiative has got to produce results in this coming year, because none of the proposals in this report will be of any interest at all to the people out there who either have children who have reached marriageable age or the people themselves who are desperate because they can never see any hope at all of being housed. Now, I know that we can say that circumstances have overtaken, circumstances in this case have overtaken, but that does not mean that we cannot respond. All we need to do is to get some innovation in the proposals that we put before this Court and put before the Manx people. There are innovations, there are short-term innovations that can ensure that people are able to start paying for a house, even if that is on a proportionate basis to start with. There are ways of increasing public sector ,housing. I know there are plans, and very good plans, but we are dealing with a situation which has largely been produced by the very high interest levels. Any money expended in this respect would be a short-term expenditure that almost certainly could be recoverable. The Health Services distress me greatly because since I have been associated with the Health Services in this Island we have had nothing but praise for the way in which Health Services have been delivered to the Manx people. That, I am sorry, Mr. President, is no longer the case, and there are areas, large areas, of genuine concern about the provision of Health Services. (Mr. Cannan: Hear, hear.) Once again this report is so misleading. If you look at the first part of it, it says there are developing areas of difficulty in waiting lists, reference page something or other, section something or other. If you look up the page and the section you will see that the same expression and the same words, the same sentence is reproduced word for word. There is no provision, unless I can be advised otherwise. And once again it is in waiting lists that these problems are greatest. We do have people waiting, for instance, to see skin specialists, 18 months away from seeing a specialist. We
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T83 have very commonly a year to wait for straightforward consultant opinions. I deliberately have not mentioned operations because that entails a more difficult problem to resolve, but Health Services all over the United Kingdom have been dogged with this problem in the past. There are ways of resolving it quickly without setting out long and expensive programmes. You can, for instance, employ short- term contracts over two or three years for individual consultants who possibly have recently retired in the UK who would be quite willing to come here and resolve these problems in some of the areas. In the areas of operation lists of course the problem is complicated by the fact that you have to rely on the number of operating theatres, and I know that those are in short supply at the moment. You, Mr. Chief Minister, did refer to matters of particular concern, and as I have spent some time in my sabbatical dealing with the physically handicapped of this Island, we are very, very disturbed about the number of young chronically sick and frequently recently injured young people, mainly with spinal injuries, who have no long-term accommodation, there is no respite accommodation, and of course these cases are added to year by year. In the proposals before us it will be something like 1993 before any accommodation is built and probably 1994 before it is actually occupied. It is very difficult to tell people who are are being temporarily housed, because some of them have been moved out of Noble's Hospital into private accommodation, that they will not see a true residential unit or respite unit for many years. So I just plead with you, although I know there are many other areas in which you have to listen to pleading, there are quietly, without any great noise, many cases in this Island that are in distress and could be relieved. I am also concerned that a lot of the provision proposed for the mentally disabled is also causing trouble, and there are certainly numbers of people who are very concerned that the planning is going on totally in isolation from the parents of the people who are so mentally disabled. So if there is any area in which one could possibly alter priorities, that is one that I would certainly put forward. I have mentioned the planning and the environmental control and we do have to look at what is going to happen in the future. The fact is that whatever population increase occurs, there is going to be a point — and we must be getting fairly close to it — when the provision of essential services on a scale necessary to support a population of more than 75,000 is going to be so terribly expensive that for no other reason apart for economic reasons we should not allow the population to get any larger. That population limit originally was thought to be 75,000. I suspect that due to changing expectations in the people who are living here that is probably excessive. So I think there are strong reasons for population control. There are many other reasons of course. There are the changes that have occurred in the last few years, particularly in the type of houses that have been built, the areas in which they have been built, which are totally out of character with the Manx communities that are close at hand, which puts pressure itself on the population, and the speed of change of course aggravates it. I will not go on any longer, but I do come back to my first point and that is that this document should not be presented to this Court in the way it is being presented, and it should, in my view, have been presented in two forms: an advice document, a discussion document, dealing with proposals seen as being possible, or not only possible but commended as being desirable. But I think there ought
Policy Report 1990 — Debate COntinued T84 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 to be a simple document, because unfortunately it is going to be simple, outlining what this Government is going to do in the next 12 months, and if you look down at what is going to occur in the next 12 months it is very, very small indeed, and if you look at every area of major concern, in the environment, in housing and so on and in particular in the Health Service, almost every area has suddenly been pushed to a private consultant to decide. This Government seems to have lost its power to decide anything, and I think that on this basis alone we either just receive the report. I am afraid I would reach the point where I would not receive the report but ask the Chief Minister to take the report back and re-present it in the two forms that I have suggested. If it passes as it is presented and is both received and the proposals and recommendations contained therein are accepted, then I am afraid that from the point of pure parliamentary democracy I will move at the next sitting of this House that there is a Select Committee established on the Treasury and the economy in which those members of this Court who are not members of the Council of Ministers will in fact set up a Select Committee which will report to this Court before the next Budget on their view of how this document will proceed —
Mr. Delaney: Join the queue.
Dr. Mann: — that there should be some means that the members of this Court outside the Council of Ministers oversee the developments here, because this is not sacred and the interpretation of these figures is not sacred, that they in fact look at other views to ensure that a report is brought back to this Court before the next Budget, so that in fact we do have an alternative, a different view or an alternative view, to the figures presented here, and then at least we will allow democracy to achieve its final aim, that is of not just accepting a blanket, which is what we are doing and at least we will start begining to have a more realistic assessment of what is being proposed. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. Anderson: Mr. President, may I first of all congratulate the hon. member for Garff on his maiden speech. Anyone listening would be aware that in terms of the political scene he is certainly not a virgin, (Laughter and interruptions) But we do welcome him back. I am rather glad, Mr. President, that I did not catch your eye when I tried to after the Chief Minister had spoken, because I was appreciative of being able to listen to the views expressed by the hon. member for Garff, and it is refreshing maybe just to get a different viewpoint on several things, and a number of them I agree with him; we may be different on others on some detail. In relation to the hon. member for Douglas East, I would console him by saying it is fortuitous that in fact the circumstances in the UK will enable the pensioners next spring to get a 101/2 per cent. on their pension. (Interruption) So at least they have something to look forward to in that context. But there are few of us, I would think, who could in fact endorse entirely everything that is in this document. I do not think there are any of us, especially in terms of the legislation, I think the Chief Minister will know that some of the legislation here I will be utterly opposed to, and I am sure he knows what I am referring to. So I think those of us who may support the document will, I hope, with some understanding, support it in a way which we will have varying degrees
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T85 of commitment to that which it contains. One area of course very ably mentioned by the hon. member for Garff was one of the things that was bringing me to my feet in relation to what the Chief Minister said, and that was in relation to the support for the agricultural industry, and I may be excused because it must be nearly 10 years since I even mentioned that in this hon. Court. (Interruption and laughter) That will be about 10 years. But the point is really that when this hon. Court was told the reasons that we would not become entirely full members of the Economic Community, the agricultural industry would not suffer as a result of that, and that we wanted to give the then, in its infancy, the finance sector the opportunity of developing, and that certainly has taken place. Had we gone in as full members, as the hon. member for Garff has pointed out, there would be many ways in which regional development would have taken place on this Island, not just for agriculture, as he pointed out, but for many other things, and because such industries have not had that support, they are suffering now. I do not want to go into what is the agriculture debate, but it is not just here, it is all over the world. The Telegraph of October 12th outlined some of the way in which deterioration will set out in the UK as a result of what is happening in the countryside. And it is important that in fact we bear in mind that the UK, in its total contribution to the EEC, contributes a vast amount of money. We were told, and it is the case, we make no contribution to it and receive no benefit from it, but we were also told that as a result of that the agricultural industry would not suffer. Now, 12 months ago it was not in all that great a state, as this article in The Telegraph points out, that for the last 10 years the position has deteriorated by 10 per cent. but because of circumstances completely beyond our control — in the treatment of lambs in France; in the situation in the Middle East where the Irish beef producers are not able to export, in fact they are owed hundreds of millions of pounds by Iran, exports have been put into the UK depressing the UK market. The fall in the price of cheese is actually costing some producers in the Isle of Man £20,000 a year. The BSE in cattle again has depressed the meat market very, very extensively. In my 24-odd years in this hon. Court I have never remembered a number of factors who are so completely outside the control, which have such a devastating effect on a single industry, and that must be recognised. I appreciate, when this document was prepared in fact, that some of these things had not come fully to light. But there are areas of concern. I share with the hon. member for East Douglas concern for those 25 per cent. at the lower end of the earning scale. I share with the hon. member for Garff the devastating effect that the housing situation has on family life, where people are having to share and circumstances and the effect that it has in the relationship within families itself. It is bringing to us problems, I think, that would not otherwise exist. So we have got to be aware, and I am aware, that the document is addressing to some degree those problems, but those problems have got to be addressed and where I would actually differ with the hon. member for Garff is that in fact, while the Members of the House of Keys run out of office at the end of next year, the Government has got to continue and planning has got to be made ahead irrespective of who is going to be there, albeit some of those plans may be changed by different people being in different positions when that time
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T86 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
comes. I think there has still got to be a long-term point of view, but while there is so much that actually is good and in respect to the other side of the coin the hon. member for Garff has looked at, you know, when he and I were struggling with a high rate of unemployment... and I agree with him entirely that the wheels had started turning at the end of that last year; there is no doubt whatever about that, the momentum had started to move, and to have an employment situation as we have today is something for which I am very thankful. The minuses and pluses are not all on one side. We have no grounds whatever for complacency. We have become far too dependent on a single industry and it is important that tourism, agriculture and fisheries and other things and the other very important aspect of it that has hardly been touched on is light industry, and I would appeal to the Minister for Industry to look on the manufacture of agricultural produce from an industrial sector because I think the department has looked on fish farming and the fish hatchery — and that has been a very successful thing — and supported that. It has supported the seaweed project and other things, but any raw material that is'produced in this Island surely is a material which is justifiably supported by the industrial sector, and I would appeal to that department to look at the agricultural industry in that context. I shall vote for the document but on the understanding that there are quite a number of things there that I am not altogether happy about, and certainly some of the legislation to which I am entirely opposed. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Corrin: Mr. President, I would also raise the question of the endorsement of the document and what we are trying to achieve. I would also like to formally second the amendment in Mr. Quine's name, if I may, Mr. President. Mr. President, the law of averages dictates that half of what is in this document is acceptable, can be even commended. Therefore it can be very negative if you vote against it, and I think that is wrong to do it. I do not want to be a party to talk the Island down, because there are many good things going on on the Island and there are many good things that Government is achieving, but, equally, of course, there are many things that concern us, but in the wide range of subjects that this document encompasses it is difficult to do justice in a debate like this to any particular subject, and also, Mr. President, are we making the best use of our time by even commenting, say, on the housing situation when in fact on the same Agenda there is room for a full debate there? It is the same on the farming situation. So I do not think we are making the best use of our time by merely commenting and not doing justice to any particular subject on this, and it is negative, then, to vote against it. Equally it is difficult to vote for it, because if you do and then you make your point on some subjects after, politically it will be said, 'Well, you did vote for it, you endorsed it', so therefore there is a problem here. In commending the hon. member for Garff on his maiden speech and formally saying that, equally I would take him to task straightaway, and to say that there are those amongst us who have no idea of what is going on in the community I think is a load of rubbish, to be quite honest. I take this opportunity to say it right here and now. Mr. President, whilst the hon. member for Garff was playing with his trains, (Laughter) there were members out in the community... and I am sure members will remember this article in the Manx Independent of Tuesday, June 16th 1987; you will all remember because there is a good photograph of me on the front
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T87 page (Laughter and interruptions) Mr. President, I did point out then the problem, June 16th, 1987 — it was not very long — six, seven months after the election, and I pointed out the problems that I could see coming at that early stage in the life of this administration on housing. Mr. President, the situation has got worse. I am not going to say much about this document, but just to take the opportunity, because housing is coming up later. Regretfully — it is nothing to crow about, nothing to laugh about or be smart about — regretfully the situation has deteriorated and that, of course, can be equated, when you talk about the quality of life, as we do, and say that people are better off, I would like to say, Mr. President, that only last week an ordinary working man came to me and said that his rent was being increased from £45 a week to £80, and when he protested to the landlord the landlord said, 'If you do not like it you know what to do, because certainly I have people, a list as long as my arm, queuing up wanting in that flat'. Now, I am sure that that list of people queuing up to get into the flat at £80 a week is absolutely true — actually no problem with it whatsoever, but are we not mindful of the problem when an ordinary person saying 'Your rent is going from £45 to £80? This wealth — and the point was made by the hon. member for Ayre — has not circulated down to ordinary people, certainly not in my opinion. That is what we should be mindful of, and I look forward to an in-depth debate on this, and now, of course, whatever proposals come here, that the Council of Ministers have now decided upon to do in the public housing sector, of course that will not come to fruition now in the life of this administration; it is too late now. You cannot possibly build houses in a year. It takes longer than that in getting them up. So in the five years this is certainly something that I think the Chief Minister has to accept: that there has been failure in the housing area, and I would, here again, accept what the hon. member for Garff has said about that failure. Yes, it is true, but certainly there are those of us — and members will speak for themselves - who are aware of that. And there are claims that housing has been provided; it is in the document. But, Mr. President, look outside of Douglas and Braddan. I think there are one or two houses provided at the north of the Island, or certainly some kind of units. Look down at the south of the Island from a point from Braddan south. Tell me where houses for ordinary people have been built. Tell me where. None, not one! That is the answer. I have said it over and over again, but there are other areas too where ordinary people who could have got themselves houses, could have built some houses by various means, have had the greatest difficulty or no success at all through the planners, and I have brought that to this Court several times too. So we do have a failure there and it is no wonder that there are many, many people who are bitterly disappointed, and the consequences of this lack of action — many people are suffering and this hurts me, this is to be regretted; we welcome it now. Just a couple more points — I will keep it short, Mr. President: education. It was interesting that for those members who... and I thank the members who attended the Training Centre in the last three weeks for a briefing. I understand also... and I thank you for the apologies from members who did send apologies, but it came over, the importance of training, that a number of young people who could possibly benefit much more from 14 years onwards if they were introduced into more practical subjects, those who feel at 14 onwards that formal education is not for them, that they have kind of switched on. If you can give them a re-awakening of the reason
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T88 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 for their education they can respond, and perhaps that is something we can look at. Lastly, Mr. President, is the subject now of wind-driven turbines for the generation of electricity. I think it is fair to say that in the development of these machines it has been quite right and proper not really to go in them on the Island until currently, but viable machines are certainly now coming onto the market and I hope... and I know the minister, Mr. May, and I hope that he will convince his colleagues that Government policy will be to establish one or two, whatever, for us to get experience, for us — that is, someone on the Island, whether it is in public terms or in private — to get some experience. That is important, to get the experience of them, and we take it from there. So with those few remarks on what is a wide-ranging policy I am not being negative to the Chief Minister in saying I hesitate to endorse, good reasons why I do not, but nevertheless, for those areas where he has genuinely worked hard, and the ministers, there are areas that we say that their performance has certainly been disappointing I would certainly receive it with good intent and constructively.
Mr. Kermode: Mr. President, if I did not know better I would swear those people are electioneering for the new minister's job! (Laughter) I have listened with interest to the member of the Legislative Council, Mr. Anderson, who says that this Government should have addressed the problem of the European Community and gone into the European Community —
Mr. Anderson: No, I did not say that.
Mr. Kermode: That is what you said, sir. I have written it down. You said we should be in there to get the advantages of the European Economic Community. I have read somewhere where this European Community was wanting to do away with tax havens; then we would have a problem, would'nt we? And the last speaker, Mr. President, was, 'I am not going to talk about housing' and then he went on to talk about housing at length. I am going to talk about housing; I am going to support the amendment by the member for Ayre. I am also going to second the amendment by my colleague for Douglas East. I am going to support the document, that housing and the expenditure and the money that is going to be spent — I support that in total. But what I do not want to see is, I do not want to listen to the radio or read newspapers where our young people have been asked to pay two rents, a mortgage and a rent because builders have not fulfilled their promises on the first- time own buyers' houses. We have had situations where young people, where there is building blocks have been used wrongly, they cannot move into their houses, they have had to move out two or three times. Who is inspecting these sites? Who have brought these builders into the Isle of Man to do this sub-standard work, and who was investigating the work? Which member of this Government... because now this Government has turned its back on its young people as far as I can see; we do not seem to be accepting any responsibility. What member of Government or department is looking at that situation where our young people are having and the cost to move in and out of houses, and not move into their own house which this scheme was set to do, to give them a foot on the ladder? Mr. President, one of the other things that is concerning me and people in my
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T89 constituency is the quality of life in the Isle of Man, which has not been addressed by this document, and the fact that people that are coming into the building industry are on work permits. I have to say it: there is riff-raff coming into the Isle of Man; no matter what nationality there is, there is riff-raff coming into the Isle of Man. You go into some of our pubs in Douglas now where ordinary decent people will not go into because of the violence and the atmosphere that is created by these people that come in, people that cannot get work elsewhere off the Island but come in in the boom time, do the work in the Isle of Man that our tradesmen should be getting, probably do a sub-standard job and then leave the Island and leave us to put it right in the end. I spoke to a police constable who said it is not unusual, when all this came into being with this workforce coming into the Isle of Man, for him to go in on a Sunday morning after a Saturday night and find 16 or 18 of these workers who have come into the Isle of Man in the cells after a night out on the ale. And when you talk about the housing problem, it is caused by these people who are willing to come in and pay the rent; these rogue landlords are willing to charge because they are taking over these premises and willing to pay it because they are 'on the lump'. I have heard cases; I was speaking to one of the officers of the L.G.E. where they have gone on to a building site and as they are coming in the front door of the building site the people who are not supposed to be there, who have not got work... go out of the back door of the site and not being caught. Now, this is happening and we cannot turn our back on that because that is a grave problem and we are going to have to address it very soon, because the Chief Minister in his own words has said that the unemployment situation now is on the increase, so we are going to have to address that as well. As far as tourism is concerned, I notice by the yellow pages on 127 that the Aqualeisure Centre or water leisure facilities — they are some £5 million still in that estimate, on page 127. Now I am just wondering, the Aqualeisure Centre was thrown out, the last capital scheme we had for tourism was Summerland, we are talking of bringing people into the Isle of Man because tourism is deteriorating. I want to know when we are going to have a leisure facility for the Isle of Man — not the Sports Centre; that is not a leisure facility for tourism. I want to know when we are going to bring some sort of a leisure facility that other resorts have for the people of the Isle of Man. The Minister for Tourism will tell you, the Aqualeisure, the Derby Castle Aquadrome — it will not be long before we will be closing that down because of the state that it is in. Members would like to ponder: maybe the Villiers site, if we acquired that, could be an ideal place to put a new swimming pool in Douglas. (Interrruption) The other thing is, I have not seen any mention in the policy document — we have got the S.I.B. the £4,500,000 we are going to need to find should that be successful. Now, I cannot see that. Is that being hidden somewhere or buried somewhere and it is going away? Or is it going away before the next election? Is that the intention? Because I cannot see anywhere in the policy document where that has been showing itself. And the other thing I want to take on, why I cannot support this document - I have already expressed my opinions — that I am concerned with the hospital development. I wrote to the Minister of the D.H.S.S. some time ago and asked him certain questions regarding the planning of the hospital. Now, the first phase, he tells me — at June 1990 prices will be £21 million. Now, that is just the first
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued 190 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
phase. I also asked him, when this development is finished how many parking spaces are there today and how many will there be when that development is completed? Well, he said, 'Today there are 273 spaces. After the development is completed' he said, 'at the conclusion of Phase 1 and based on certain assumptions about land availability' — whatever that means — 'there will be 257 spaces', so we are going to increase the Noble's Hospital facility but we are not going to plan for the parking in that area, and are going to get more staff in there, obviously; we are going to get more people coming to that facility. It is time this Government, looking ahead even further than the five years in this document, but to 10 to 15 years' time when the Noble's Hospital site should be transferred to a green field site where there is greater scope for development. Now, I know that is costly but it is going to cost even more in the years to come, and you are going to start knocking down houses in that particular area to accommodate... No, I will support health care, I am not opposed to health care, I can support it but what I cannot support is the knocking down of houses to build highways and to build the hospital development. That is not on because of the shortage of housing, especially on this Island when we have got enough green field sites in Government ownership where the hospital site can be developed, so therefore I am not going to support that particular aspect when it comes before Tynwald. As regarding pensioners, I do not need to stand up here today and talk about what I have achieved over the years as far as pensioners are concerned because this hon. Court knows that since my inception in this Government (Laughter) I have always tried to help and carry a torch for the pensioners. But nevertheless I can have some sentiments with the amendments by my colleague. Having said that, I do accept also that the Department of the D.H.S.S. has made certain steps that do help some of the pensioners in our community — and I am not after the minister's job, I am just giving credit where credit is due (Laughter) I feel... (Interruptions) Well I could do his job too! Having said that, I believe that the department have got their act together. One of the things I picked up in this document, Mr. President, is that when you look through the single person's allowances in the Isle of Man, he is telling us that by January 1991 the pensioner in the Isle of Man, the single pensioner, if he is over 80, will get the £95 a week, but we all know it is not until you get to 75 you get the £7.50 we have been talking about, so that knocks that down a little bit. I honestly believe that we, as a Government, should be going into our European Community to look at the situation with pensioners in our European Community, we should address that problem before 1992 to find out how our pensioners fare in relation to the European Community, and I think you will get a shock, because with all these nice figures in the world it does not take into being the cost of living in the Isle of Man. It says 'normal requirement to £55.75'. Now, I do not know what he classes as normal requirements; it may mean a normal requirement is you sit there every night, watch the television if you can afford one because your television licence is free but you cannot go out and have a drink or do any of the other things that we all do because you are old and that is all we are giving you to live on. That is a fact of life and that is happening today and if the Minister of the D.H.S.S. would like to spend some time with me, he can come into my pensioners' club across the road and talk to some of the older ones and talk to them and they will put him right as far as cost is concerned (Interruption and laughter).
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T91
Also, it was quite interesting to hear, Mr. President, the member for Rushen tack about the £45 to £80 rent. Now, my colleague and I have experienced over recent weeks where this has actually happened in our constituency. Yet the rent allowance that has been put down here, for example, is £20 a week. You cannot even get a local authority house for £20 a week; you can get a flat but you will not get a local authority house for £20 a week. So therefore that makes a nonsense of the rent allowances that they get here. I feel that we have got to address the pensioners, especially those who are retired who have still got to live; they have still got to be a part of our community and you cannot lock them behind locked doors and say `Look, stop living'. They have got to get out of that house. Loneliness is a terrible thing. You have got to get them out of those houses and give them something to do and give them the finance to do it, because some are not as well off as others, I accept. There is a great deal of poverty amongst pensioners, but I must say the department are trying in some areas to solve that problem. I hope it continues. Mr. President, I think I have said enough today. I hope somebody has taken some notice. I am not a minister of this Government, I am just a simple soul and, I unlike Dr. Mann, I have not got a train set but I can assure him that I move in the community as much as he does, because, Mr. President, when he first stood up I thought 'Now, here is a man, a Messiah who has come to save us all and then, after he had finished, I was disappointed when he tells us we did not know anything about the community we live in — let me down completely. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Barton: Mr. President, I think we started this debate and I think hon. members would be most interested listening to a very interesting talk by the ex- Chairman of the Board of Social Security, the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney. Now, I was dreadfully disappointed that he did not detail some of the policy initiatives that he initiated during that time, because it would have been interesting. I will not cover any other items in relation to the Department of Health and Social Security because I am certain the minister will cover most of these later on, but I was interested in what the hon. member for Garff said. Again, I will not duplicate too much other than that I took issue on one vague criticism he made of the mentally handicapped or mentally disabled, and he probably must be a little bit out of touch in that he is not aware that there are very active mentally handicapped groups on the Island and they represent and work with the families and they are working very closely and have a joint committee with the department, and that is in operation and working well.
Dr. Mann: Could I clarify that, Mr. President? I did not criticise the mentally handicapped, and all I was saying was that the committee is out of contact.
The President: I am sorry, hon. member. You are out of order. Proceed sir.
Mr. Barton: Anyway, Mr. President, to come back to the Policy Report, I think the 1990 Policy Report is far better, more positive than the previous ones and I think most of us will agree on this today. The proposals and recommendations in general one cannot fault other than some of the detail within it. I would say that it is a little limited in areas and probably a cautious, 'play-safe' policy document.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T92 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
It is quite right to bring a form of discipline into our form of planning, and I think that has been highlighted by quite a few members today. The Chief Minister, the Council of Ministers and the departments of Government within this Policy Report have spelt this out, and we cannot and should not spend what we cannot afford. And, as I say, for the first time within this document, it has been spelled out the size of the cake — the Government priorities coupled with the departmental priorities which most members of this hon. Court have contributed to. The rate of our growth currently, I agree, has tempered as against a very fast situation that was happening before. It is not declining; it has tempered slightly. We also again must take note of the current problems in the U.K. and changes, and there are some good ones within U.K. and Europe. Against that, however, I do think the proposals in the document are a little over-cautious as in prioritising the social areas, certain wealth-producing items have been pushed back in the programme. Housing, it is right, is high on the priority list, but we see a massive swing from the private sector to the public sector in a very short period, and I trust we can achieve this ambitious costly programme and that the balance is right considering the longterm revenue implications. The pendulum, I think, has swung a little too sharply in one go. We must not forget, as has just been said — and it should be taken into account — that a large number of flats where charges have risen, resulting in a shortage of accommodation, have been fuelled by the large number of temporary workers in the construction industry. Health and education also head the Government list of priorities. It is good, however, that the Isle of Man can boast better results in health and education per head as against the U.K., and in education the U.K. heads many other countries. However, after a massive investment in our Further Education College — long overdue, I would suggest - I was surprised to see a further large capital investment so high in the priority list, and that 25 per cent. of our educational resources go into this area of education. Mr. Quine commented on wind power energy and I think that was quite interesting. I was a bit surprised, and no-one has mentioned today, that two years ago, certainly as far as I understood, the Ronaldsway Aircraft Company were in fact going into this area and in fact have done quite a bit of development, but no doubt this may come out from, say, the Ministry of Industry later on. Paragraph 5.2 and 5.3 of the document states the paramount issue of the Island remains the need of economic growth to develop services without increasing rates of taxation. That is good. That is why I was surprised that the Airport Phase 2 has been pushed back a year, also the Registry and Court Block — good potential revenue earners and needed in our growth. 5.5 also states that one of the principle immediate constraints in growth is shortage of labour and courses of action are detailed in 5.12, 'Expanding the Workforce.' Mr. Corrin mentioned something. When we visited the Industry Section we were talking on this very subject recently down there and I was very concerned, visiting the Industrial Training Division last week, that some schoolleavers could not start because of their limited reading, writing and arithmetic skills, and I would like to see more opportunity given to the non-academic to be stimulated re a potential career or work prospect as part of their education at an earlier stage than at present, and I think the hon. member, Mr. Corrin did mention the age of 14. (6.4) rightly spells out the self-imposed constraints in the forward financial and manpower programme. I have been a supporter of this administration in building up necessary reserves so
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T93 that we can weather any downturn. Mr. President, would the Chief Minister, now having baked the cake, be a little bit more ambitious and put some icing on it by bringing forward by one year some wealth producers — again, I repeat, for example, the Airport Phase 2 and the Registry Courthouse — and, to stimulate a further advance, consolidate the national and international position which we have created and developed? A little extra injection now in this area and further promotion of industrial investment will help long term to assist paying for our improved social requirements. We would not be dipping into our reserves, I am suggesting, but rather putting aside this coming year and in fact investing that money in growth, that little bit of extra which we would normally put into reserves, because, as outlined this morning, our reserves are quite strong and it is right to build them up. But I think this is probably one time you could afford to be a bit more ambitious and channel a little bit more and bring two of those items forward and invest in growth. I endorse the policy of constraining the manpower budget, Mr. President. I am sure many hon. members were heartened a year ago when the Minister for Tourism announced a proposed reduction by 30 per cent. of the manpower budget. I am not surprised, as his manpower budget in the last three years has increased by 27 per cent. against the rest of Government of only 10.72 per cent. at a time of considerably reduced tourist visitors. (Interruption) Where else would you continue to have a Government travel agency competing against a well supplied private sector? I think that area is a waste of manpower and such staff could readily be used in the rest of Government and help to contain the manpower vote which we are concerned about. (Interruption) Could the Chief Minister in his reply indicate whether this will take effect? I was a little amused, but I do not blame the Minister for Tourism, in claiming the increased numbers on the buses to improve service. I think most of us will agree it is the increased free... the retired people — and this is good — that are now travelling on the buses and using them well. Instead of a free bus travel for schoolchildren we have a bureaucratic system of giving each child 75p a week to pay for his or her bus fare, and if we discount holiday visitors actual revenue from real paying customers must be low. Are we not in a position yet to investigate — and I am certain the Minister for Tourism and Transport is sympathetic in this direction — but should we now be looking and investigate whether a free service would be a paying proposition? I think also — and this has been mentioned before — I would like to see rather than these massive buses, which are not always full... Could we have some of these community buses, 18/24 seaters, in the Island, which I think there is a demand for? I continue to support ministerial responsibility and the structuring of Executive Council into a Council of Ministers with an ability to take executive decisions - authority with responsibility but now also accountability. Mr. President, I know the Chief Minister does not highlight his own new powers, which I trust, if necessary, he will exercise. Management in department is still improving but there is still some where to go, and I trust the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers will assist their colleagues when the are frustrated by certain bureaucratic situations which still exist. We have a considerable amount of talent within the Civil Service which should be encouraged in their training development coupled with promotional prospects. Yes, it is right within the document, and as other members have said
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T94 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 today, to congratulate the Government staff and record on behalf of the Island its appreciation of its service of its staff. Mr. President, agriculture will be discussed in a separate motion this sitting, but I do support much of the present Minister for Agriculture's policy and action, noting in particular his comments on marketing and that of the National Farmers' Union, an area which should have been addressed a long time ago before the present crisis. A producer-owned processor/retailer is not normally a good combination for all concerned. The legislative programme must be tightly controlled and prioritised because it is quite frightening what has got to be done in this next year. Section 11, Constitutional Development, Management and Quality of Life — I fully support the policy objectives. The rest of the service headings in general I support, but I query whether there is a mistake in the Home Affairs statistics, page 77, and perhaps the Chief Minister would correct whether there has been a mistake, because I see on that the detection rate has dropped sharply since 1987 as against printed increase of 35 per cent. in the Budget. I am sure the Chief Minister may clarify this. I support the policy objective as attracting new business over all sectors. The document is a bit thin in detail on this and I should say lacks a little courage. Mr. President, in supporting the Policy Document I trust the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers in this session will concentrate what is necessary and good for the Island as a whole rather than just parochially popular, thus creating a foundation for fulfilling this three to five-year programme.
The President: Now, hon members, while the hon. member for Douglas West has caught my eye, I am also aware the provision of Standing Order 16 (4): 'On ordinary occasions the business of the day shall terminate at the hour of six o'clock in the afternoon, but the time of continuance shall be determined by a majority of the members present according to the state of the business before Tynwald.' Does the Court wish to terminate its proceedings now or continue for, say, one hour? I can see little point in continuing for any longer than an hour.
Mr. Kermode: I move it go on until seven o'clock, Mr. President.
The President: Would the Court agree to seven o'clock, then, as an approximate terminating time ? (It was agreed.) Thank you, hon. members. Hon. member.
Mr. Cain: Thank you, Mr. President. I have listened to the debate so far, Mr. President, with interest, and I would like to begin such remarks as I have to make by commenting on some of the views that have been expressed about the department for which I have a responsibility, perhaps, hopefully, to correct one or two of the misstatements that may have been made during the course of the debate. First. of all, can I just tell Mr. Kermode that the review in terms of pensioners will not be restricted to a comparison with the United Kingdom. Can I just put that one to one side? (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.) Thank you, sir! (Laughter) Could I also deal with the other point of principle which was raised by Mr. Kermode? We have been in correspondence, and he gave you some of the information that was contained in the letter that was sent to him. It is right to say
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T95 that the purpose of the Policy Document is to reflect current Government policy, and that, in terms of the development of Phase 1 of Noble's Hospital, is precisely what the document reflects. However, it is fair to say — and I am not prepared to go beyond this statement at this time — that the department, as distinct from the Council of Ministers, is re-examining the situation with regard to the decision that was made to redevelop and is also looking at the options that exist. Now if I could turn backwards, which I have a tendency to do at times, I would like to comment on what I thought was a very disturbing statement made by the member for Douglas East, Mr. Delaney, and this, I believe, needs to be corrected, where he said 25 per cent. of the population are left out. Now, that is quite an emotive statement and it referred, in his eyes, to the pensioners. Now, fair enough, it is right and proper to say that we have a substantial proportion of the population who are of pension age, but I certainly take issue with him when he asserts that 25 per cent. of the population are left out. Now I have some statistics here. The member of the Council, Mr. Anderson, made the comment about increases in social security benefits of 10.5 per cent. which will be coming effective next year, and in principle, although his figures are slightly awry, the position is right and this is part of the reciprocal agreement that we have with the United Kingdom. In fact, as I understand it, the increase will be 10.9 per cent., just under 11 per cent, and in fact, on the basis that that assumption is right, that we are just under 11 per cent, the total additional amount that will be paid to pensioners — this is additional — will approximate to £4 million. The total additional amount that will be payable by way of supplementary benefit will be three quarters of a million pounds. The total additional amount that will be payable out of the National Insurance Fund will be £4.5 million, and that includes, of course, the retirement pension figures that I have just given you, and the total amount that will be payable out of a general taxation will be additional £2.2 million. So we have in total additional amounts that will be payable as a result of our reciprocal agreement and an understanding that we have with the United Kingdom of £6.7 million.
Mr. Delaney: Why is it being paid ?
Mr. Cain: Now, the next point that I want to make, in terms of 25 per cent. of the population being left out, is that it is well enunciated in this Policy Document that we are initiating a review of the existing social security programme for a variety of reasons, and I have the terms of reference which are proposed before me. As members of this Court will know, there is a five-yearly periodic actuarial review. Now, for a whole host of reasons we have still not received the 1987 Actuarial Review from the Government Actuary in London. But we are expecting it; we have been expecting it very frequently for a long time, but I just mention this point. The actuarial review is going to update the situation beyond 1987 and in fact is going to assist us to assess what our requirements are in terms of our legal obligations in terms of a fund which is approximately £150 million. So the review of the social security system, when you understand that the total payments — more than 50 per cent. of them go to pensioners, is a fact that will be initiated in the next 12 months, and 25 per cent. of the population are left out. Now, on top of that we have this issue that was raised in terms of the growth in real terms of the benefits that have been paid, total benefits for social security
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T96 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 purposes, and on page 70 of the document you have figures that start off in 1950 at £7.8 million, and, at constant prices, that figure in 1990 is £54.5 million, and that is inclusive, of course, of the related administration costs. So the total amount that has been paid out since 1950 has grown by a factor of seven at constant prices. Now, that is a very substantial reallocation of resources within this community which should be recognised in terms of what our predecessors have done over a very substantial period of time. The specific point that was made by the member for Douglas East related to the fact, and there is truth in this — at constant prices the total benefits paid in 1990 were £52.6 million, and at constant prices in 1985 the figure was £52.2 million — not much of a difference at constant prices. I could mention that in 1980, five years previously, the figure was £10 million less than that, but leave that to one side and let me try and give you a brief explanation as to why the figures are constant. It is because the pattern of benefit payments has varied substantially over the last five years in that, because of the increasing economic wealth, the numbers who have been on unemployment benefit have come down very substantially, the numbers who have been on family income supplement have come down substantially, so what we have got, although the total amount paid out at constant prices is approximately the same, we do have a reallocation within the total package of benefits, and that is good. Now it is fair to say — I will make this forecast — that with the substantial increase that is being initiated as and from the 1st October in terms of the £7.50, the full effect of which will be felt next fiscal year, the total amount that is going to be paid out is going to grow yet again. I am not arguing against the figures produced by Mr. Delaney; what I am trying to do is just to put a little bit of balance into the position.
Mr. Delaney: What was inflation over that period?
Mr. Cain: Look, these figures are at constant prices, so in terms of... These are at constant prices so they presumably take account of the inflationary effect. So I am afraid I do not accept, and I would ask the members of this hon. Court not to accept, the premise on which the amendment that has been put round in the name of Mr. Delaney has been based. I believe that I have tried to bring forward reasoned arguments why the premise on which his amendment is based should be voted against.
Mr. Delaney: No policy!
Mr. Cain: Now, let me turn from Mr. Delaney and, if I could, I would like to address the views expressed by my colleague, Mr. Quine, who looks after Health Services within the department. Now, Mr. Quine has put down a second amendment, and the whole tenor of my remarks really rely on the following: that whilst a lot of what he said merits attention, it did not merit enough attention to support the amendment or the way in which the amendment has been phrased. (Laughter)
Mr. Kermode: No longer a backbencher!
Mr. Cain: Now just stay with me for a few moments. (Laughter)
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T97
Mr. Delaney: We are trying to get away!
Mr. Cain: When he talks about wind farms I have personally no problem whatsoever and I do not think there is no conflict, in my view, with the broad terms of the Policy Document. I could go a stage further and suggest: why cannot we see whether the Manx Electricity Authority cannot in fact give grants to its consumers to encourage them to reduce the demands for electricity and thereby save the consumption of electricity? This is a common procedure in the United States. (Interruption)
Mr. Delaney: The ministers are arguing between themselves now.
Mr. Cain: No, I am not. There is no argument; what we are all trying to be is constructive. (Interruption) Now the next point, Mr. President, is this: he went on to talk about constitutional development. If we were all to give our individual views on constitutional development there would not be that much disagreement about the need for constitutional development. There might be differences of opinion as to what we each mean by it and indeed the pace and the speed with which it should be done, but that is a matter for individual assessment. And also he brought in at the end of his speech remarks about the European Community in this context, and I have my suspicions as to why he might have done that too. What I am trying to say is that the remarks that he made about the need for constitutional development do not of themselves merit voting against this document. We can all have differing views, as I have said, but the remarks that he made do not in my view merit voting against it. Then at the beginning of his speech he made a number of detailed criticisms of particular issues, which is fine; I think we are all entitled to have differing views about varying aspects of the document.
Mr. Kermode: Unusual for him.
Mr. Cain: Now, to the best of my recollection, when the Chief Minister introduced and presented the Policy Report at half past two or thereabouts this afternoon, Mr. President, he indicated in effect that the Policy Document had, in my opinion, a degree of flexibility built into it.
Mr. Delaney: A lot of flexibility. (Laughter and interruption)
Mr. Cain: The word I used was flexibility. (Laughter) And indeed he indicated that he welcomed comment. Now again, the various issues that were raised by the member for Ayre, in my opinion, did not adequately support the amendment that is down in his name, and I would urge the members of this Court, Mr. President, to say to themselves that the speech made by the proposer of this amendment should fall because of lack of substance in support of the resolution (Laughter)
Mr. Quine: You are trying hard, Jim!
Mr. Kermode: Are you going to fall out, you pair ?
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T98 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Mr. Cain: Now, could I turn to the member for Garff, Dr. Mann, and perhaps say just one or two comments? And perhaps if I could start off by commenting on the remarks that he made about Health Services, but before I do so could I congratulate him on his speech? (Members: Hear, hear.) It is quite apparent to me that Dr. Mann is a man whose words should not be overlooked.
Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear — a flexible friend!
Mr. Cain: Nevertheless, I am going to tackle one or two of the points that he made. He talked about waiting lists and in giving examples of the large areas - if I have used the words that he used correctly — 'large areas of genuine concern that exist about the Health Service', and he quoted three things: he quoted waiting lists, he quoted the chronically sick and the need for respite care and he talked about the mentally disabled, and fourthly he talked about the use of consultative services. Now all those issues, I think, related to Health Services. Now, let me perhaps deal with the last one first, the use of consultative services. Now I would just remind him and indeed the members of this hon. Court that the use of consultative services — and in terms of the Health Services review we are talking about Liverpool University, whose team is on the Island at the present time — follows a Tynwald resolution, and if I can find it, I have in front of me the actual words of that resolution. It is not something the department initiated; in fact, I am right in saying that there was a debate initiated by the member for Peel about 12 months ago.
Mrs. Hannan: Don't blame me!
Mr. Cain: I am not blaming you. I am certainly not, but I think it was an amendment in the name of Mr. President —
Mr. Delaney: That is right. Blame him!
Mr. Cain: — at the time which actually gave us the form of the resolution, and it reads as follows: 'The Governor in Council appoints a commission of independent persons', so it was not for us; this is what the resolution agreed by Tynwald - 'independent persons'. I think that deals with that one. The question of the mentally disabled and the question of planning in isolation. I do not accept the premise of that point. I can understand — because I have attended a meeting within the last month for the chronically sick and disabled persons body under the chairmanship of Mr. Cretney — there is a joint committee comprising of members of MENCAP and senior officers of the Social Services Division of my department which acts as a liaison committee in looking after the needs of the mentally disabled and the mentally handicapped. Now, it is fair to say that they — quite properly, because they are a very genuine and quite proper authority and that is their function and it is right that they should have that function — would ask us to proceed perhaps a little bit faster or perhaps a lot faster than we are progressing at the present time. Now, we have to perhaps take a wider view and look at the total order of priority, but there is a liaison committee and it is working. The next point is the question of the chronically sick. Now, fair enough, as I
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T99 am sure Dr. Mann has seen, there is provision within our capital programme for a unit for the chronically sick. Now, fair enough it may not be as quick as he might wish or indeed as I might wish but we have got it within the capital programme and it is there and it is being given a degree of priority. Now, to a degree the issues of what should be addressed and what Should not be addressed at the end of the day, after you have listened to advice, are going to be subjective, and you can disagree with the decision that is made and that is your right. All I am saying is the issue has been addressed and it is within the order of priority. Now the question of the waiting lists, which is also an issue that has been addressed... I have just, Mr. President, at the present time mislaid the paper that I am looking for. (Interruptions) I think what I am going to do is to confine myself to some general remarks about the issue of waiting lists, and I am going to start by saying this: I know Dr. Mann indicated, gave as an example — this is within my recollection — why cannot we, for example, think about employing consultants, perhaps who have recently retired, and bring them in to add weight, add numbers, add throughput in terms of the work that is done through the theatres? Now, fair enough. I am very happy to examine that issue. It is fair to say that the issue of waiting lists has been examined in great detail, and it is also fair to say that one of the primary areas of difficulty is nothing whatever to do with theatres. It is to do with hospital beds and their availability for people who should be in receipt of care and attention after they have been operated on. Now, it is fair to say that... and I must give credit to the member for Ayre who has got the specific responsibility for this — (Interruptions) It is right to say that in addressing the issue, Mr. President, of the availability of beds in Noble's Hospital, the decision has been taken to move the training unit, the nursing educational unit out of Nobles. Now, the effect of this is to release something to the order of nearly 40 beds — two full wards. Now this cannot be done overnight, but it is going to be one of the key areas for breaking the log jam in terms of waiting lists. Now, it is proposed to effect this move as soon as possible, and I think I am right in saying that we are Talking about February. Now that — hopefully that it comes about and I have no reason to think that it will not — will in fact make a very substantial difference to the availability of beds in terms of people who have needs for operations. There is a whole host of other steps that have been taken, including making more use of the facilities at Ramsey Cottage Hospital, and indeed a number of other issues. So I do not want Dr. Mann, or indeed the members of this Court, to think that the issue of waiting lists has been just let slide. That is not so. (Interruptions) It is at the top of the list of priorities in terms of the Health Services Division. Now, he made one or two other remarks which I would like to take issue with. He talked about there being a general perception... and it is very easy to make remarks like this, because I cannot contradict him, nor would I dream of doing so, but he is talking about there being a general perception that we are low on competence, that there is a need for a true parliamentary opposition and that there is a squandering of resources. Now that perception... if my notes bear any reality to the truth of the statements made by Dr. Mann, I must admit that as a new parliamentarian I have not heard any of these remarks made to me personally - not any of them, and I get quite a reasonable postbag and indeed my phone is also quite active. I do not believe that there is a general view that those three areas are the general public perception.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued T100 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
Now, he went on to suggest that we should revise the programme into two parts, and we should have the next 12 months' programme in one document and the rest for future debate in terms of more of a discussion document. Now, that is just a matter of layout, but in fact the document is one that will be adjusted, modified and adapted each year, as it may be necessary so to do, because nothing stands still. So I cannot see, of itself, that that suggestion really is a reason for rejecting the document. I put down the words 'personal survival' here, and he even stated, as I understand it, that the document had been brought together on the basis of personal survival.
Mr. Delaney: That is the queue outside Noble's!
Mr. Cain: Now, it is fair to say that, as far as I am concerned, the document — and I am sure that I speak for many others — has been put together on the basis of what is felt to be in the best interests of the Isle of Man; it has not been put together on the basis of personal survival, and I really do deprecate remarks of that nature. I am afraid, Mr. President, my remarks have been a little bit negative because I have concentrated on trying to react to some of the speeches that have been made so far. We can all criticise a document of this size and length. It would be wrong, in fact it would be amazing, if we could all agree with the contents wholeheartedly. It is just not possible. It has been accepted, I think, that the document is a distinct improvement on its predecessor, and, if that is agreed, Mr. President, in the knowledge of the opening remarks made by the Chief Minister when he presented it, I would urge the members of this hon. Court to support the resolution standing in his name.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I think that my starting point is that I find it disappointing from most of the speakers so far, in fact looking what I would suggest is a way out not to be seen to support what is a report and a document which provides information as to ways forward from the departments. One could also be forgiven for thinking that in fact members of departments have not had an input into this, and this has been said previously in such debates. We see before us two amendments to try and get people — if I use the term nicely — off the hook, as I see it, by saying 'Well, if we take those amendments we have not really supported the document because it says we do not, but we have not voted against it, so we are not seen to be opposing it'. If we look at the resolution before hon. members it says quite clearly that the Policy Report for 1990 be received and the proposals and the recommendations contained therein endorsed. If hon. members go to page 97 of the report, which actually lays out the proposals and the recommendations they will see that the recommendations are mainly to do with the introduction of legislation. The proposals are matters that departments, I would suggest which, if we look round this hon. Court, consist of the vast majority of members of this hon. Court, have been projected by their departments as proposals they would like to pursue, and the important ones, I suppose, Mr. President, are on pages 98 and 99 where it says: 'Capital programme, 1991/92 to '95/96' and it says, 'Government recommends that it be endorsed as appropriate' and I emphasise, `at this stage, as a plan for the next five years.' And then it goes on about manpower
Policy Report 1990 — Debate COntinued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 T101 budget and it says the same there, 'at this stage.' So the inference given — that if we support the resolution before us in its entirety it means we are stuck, we have these tablets of stone and we cannot move and we have had it — is really a false premise. I would also say, Mr. President, that members want to think what they have argued about and what they have suggested to the Council of Ministers over the last three years on how they would like to see this document evolve, and I see this document from year to year becoming better, becoming more informative, providing information that members would wish to see and certainly providing information which is useful to see what is happening in the Island, either has happened or is happening as we can project it, the problem being, Mr. President, that for people outside, they do not really know, the vast majority, what is in this document. They will pick out snippets from what members say in the debate but the important point is that if members vote against it, while it would be seen that Government has no policy at all, albeit that would not necessarily be true, and if they can amend it in some way to say, 'Well, we did not agree with the document but we will just note it' basically, they are free then to say 'Well, we were okay because in fact we did not support the Government in that one; that was their own objective'. So I would just say to the hon. members who have spoken so far and who are saying they are not going to support it, although they can agree with most of it but not all of it, or half of it, or whatever, I think it is really not a reasonable stance to take in the positions we are within this hon. Court. I would suggest supporting this report and the resolution as written does not cause members any problems. It does not bind them down to anything as such in the way that they are perceiving, but in fact gives an indication of how Government policy may be advanced as time goes on. It is also fair to say that members also realise, Mr. President, that in fact tomorrow, as the Chief Minister said in his opening remark, things can change and we can see quite a different way forward because suddenly circumstances have changed, pressures have become different, and I certainly, as one can assure you as a minister, am not going to sit down if circumstances change and say, 'Well, I am sorry, we accepted this report last month so I am not going to do anything about it'. The realities of politics, as we all know, are that if there are changes tomorrow we will react, or we will try to combat those changes to meet the needs of the Island. So I think members are putting too much emphasis on that, and I would hope hon. members would be able to support the resolution as written. One point I would just like to cover from my point of view is the main point, I suppose, in the report, and a couple of matters that have been raised with regard to my department. And there was one major point which was about the £7 1/2 million total for housing in the department. And if hon. members go to page 124, which I think is what is causing the confusion, where it shows my department's capital expenditure under new schemes, the first scheme says 'public sector' housing and in column 3 it shows a projection of £71/2 million. And then members go over to column 6, it shows £750,000, column 7 — £1.5 million, column 8 — £1.5 million, and so on. Now, if I can just try and clarify that for members, Mr. President, the £71/2 million that is projected there is the department's own capital projected vote for housing. The £71/2 million which is projected within the document for Government's total housing commitment, £71/2 a half million per annum, includes local authority housing as well, and that is not projected in the capital budget of my department
POlicY RetiOit 1990 — Debate 'Continued T102 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990
because local authority housing is a revenue item and is only a capital item for the local authority, but my department only meets that deficiency and therefore that is shown in my revenue estimates. So the total commitment is £71/2 million. It is only co-incidental that that £7 1/2 million is shown for my department's overall vote for that period of years. So I hope members will not be confused by that point of the capital vote that is projected for my department. You have to add to that then the local authority votes which will go into that, which totals then, £71/2 million per annum. I would also like to just make it clear that from the housing point of view, Mr. President, the department itself has, with local authorities, in fact, been trying to overcome some of the serious problems that have been caused to many people in the Island, and in fact there is no doubt that within my department it is a top priority by myself, my department colleagues and the staff. Now, the department has tried to buy ready-built properties in the last nine months; unfortunately we have been unsuccessful because of circumstances, really, just outside our control, but we have tried to do that because, again we are very much aware of the concerns inside the Island, of trying to answer the problems of people on the Island. One of our major problems — and the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, raised a problem about `the house building is seen to go on only in the Douglas/Onchan area and there has been a big vacuum outside that area', and I think we can accept that — one of the problems there has been that unfortunately, in years gone by, Government had no land bank, and the only land banking available was in Douglas and Onchan, where Douglas Corporation owned land and Onchan Commissioners owned land and therefore they were able to move quickly to provide housing on their own land, and that helped to advance the schemes. Now, certainly in the last six to nine months we have been actively purchasing land out of the £2 million vote that was given approval by Tynwald in the Budget, and we have been relatively successful on that, and, as the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, quite rightly says, our problem then of course is the design and build stage, which takes a period of time, and that is why the department has actively been trying to find whether or not it can buy houses ready built. One of the problems on that is there is very little spec. building going on in the housing market. Most of the builders are only building for people who are saying 'Yes, I will have a house'. So we have not got the situation we had in the late '60s, early '70s, where there was a lot of spec. building going on, so there is a real problem there, and we recognise that and we are actively trying to identify properties to buy. The department is presently looking at a policy regarding some houses which, if we are able to confirm that decision, will I hope bring relief to some families quite quickly, and that is something that is going to be a difficult decision and certainly I can imagine some criticism from members of this hon. Court.
What we do have, though, Mr. President, is a projected large building programme of 120-plus houses a year projected to be built. Of course, all the other problems come into that, of course, as we all know: planning — because we are no different, and people object to planning applications that the department put in just the same as anybody else, and it is happening, and in fact in one case we have a local authority expressing concern, and the concern unfortunately seems to be because it is public sector housing, not because it is just housing, and I have to say I find that most regrettable in the situation we have. The department's policy has been that public
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 1990 1103
sector housing is a priority. We have got to meet the demands of people who are living in what are unreasonable conditions by relieving the pressure on the very cases the hon. member for Rushen quoted — £80 rent for a house. I would suggest that half those people waiting to queue up to pay the £80 are people also waiting for council houses, and therefore, if we can relieve that pressure, then the rents may not be so high in the private sector. At the moment they are being able to be offered at a premium. So the department are very, very conscious of this and we are trying to do all we can within the restrictions that in fact in many cases are outside the control of myself and my department colleagues or anyone else. I will not say much more than that because I do know hon. members are concerned about housing and we know that there is an Agenda item later on, Mr. President, but I do think it is important, as some of the points had been raised in debate, that I at least indicate that we are very conscious about it. Some of the circumstances of many young families in the Isle of Man are very serious and very grave, and we are very conscious of that and will do all we can to try to overcome that. That being said, I believe the department in many areas of policy, waste management, et cetera, in major policy debates will be initiated by myself in this hon. Court in the next couple of months on these matters and will give members an opportunity to debate these subjects, which are very important to the Isle of Man.
The President: May I call upon the minister to reply? Ah, there is an interest in continuing the debate! Hon. members, I think I am going to live dangerously for a moment and say to you that I accepted that we should finish around seven o'clock. I am going to interpret that as closing earlier than seven rather than later in the hope that I am meeting the wishes of the House, so I propose now to adjourn until 10.30 tomorrow morning, and the first speaker I will call upon will be the hon. member for Rushen, Dr. Orme. Thank you, hon. members.
The Court adjourned at 6.46 p.m.
Policy Report 1990 — Debate Continued