Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT

Douglas, Wednesday, 19th October 1988 at 10.30 a.m.

Present: The Lieutenant-Governor (His Excellency Major General Laurence New, C.B., C.B.E.). In the Council: The President of the Council (the Hon. R.J.G. Anderson), the Attorney-General (Mr. T.W. Cain), Mr. B. Barton, Hon. A.A. Callin, Mr. E. C. Irving, C.B.E., Hon. E.G. Lowey, His Honour A.C. Luft, Messrs. W.K. Quirk and J.N. Radcliffe, with Mr. T.A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council.

In the Keys: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.)(Garff); Hon. A.R. Bell and Brig. N.A. Butler, C.B.E. (Ramsey); Mr. R.E. Quine (Ayre); Hon. J.D.Q. Cannan (Michael); Mrs. H. Hannan (Peel); Mr. W.A. Gilbey (Glenfaba); Mr. D. North (Middle); Messrs. P. Karran, R.C. Leventhorpe and L.R. Cretney (Onchan); Hon. B. May and Mrs. J. Delaney (Douglas North); Messrs. A.C. Duggan and D.C. Cretney (Douglas South); Hon. D.F.K. Delaney and Mr. P.W. Kermode (Douglas East); Messrs. J.C. Cain and Hon. G.V.H. Kneale (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 Chaplain of the House of Keys took the prayers.

GOVERNMENT POLICY REVIEW — DEBATE CONTINUED

The Governor: I call on the hon. Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the Executive Council can be proud of its overall record to date. Since the last election it has faced a formidable task overcoming the shortfalls of a previous administration. It had to mould an executive, no easy task in itself and one that will always be substandard in respect of the mould until the viewpoint of the hon. member for Rushen expressed yesterday is accepted and a Chief Minister is given unhampered authority and indeed responsibility. Executive kept its head when the Island experienced communication difficulties. It has reduced unemployment significantly to date and can, sir, claim a broad record of success

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T114 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 but, Your Excellency, these I suspect, have been the cosy years for this administration, and while a review such as the policy objective we have before us is useful as a guide or a propaganda device, whichever way you care to look at, it inevitably it is a Government paper with all that that implies. Examining it, to me, it reveals a Government at the crossroads excepting perhaps the signs and wishing to follow them all, promising to travel in every direction according to the viewpoint of respective ministers who wish to justify their appointments. In all, I believe, it is attempting to do too much with the great danger that the real issues that face the Island are going to be regarded as secondary to the more grandiose creations which ministers will tell us are essentials of their ministerial responsibility, and that is why I second Mr. Cain's amendment, which is in the interests of Executive itself in that it will be forced to determine priorities, its objectives and give a concise policy document rather than a widespread of ideas which we have before us at the moment. Now, Your Excellency, it is not my intention to unduly extend the protracted debate of yesterday, but there are some points, I believe, as yet unmade and some that need emphasis that occur to me. Strange, to me, that in a document that professes to care there is no mention of the right of individual petition to the Court of Human Rights, no endeavour to find a formula to make this possible which is acceptable to Tynwald, no aspiration also to enter the media world of tomorrow with satellite television and a Manx Wireless Telegraphy Act, no demand, Your Excellency, for 12-mile territorial waters with their fishery and mineral rights. I wonder if any member of Executive has even seen a legal opinion commissioned by this Government on these points many years ago. I am quite sure the Court will be interested in an extract from it. In dealing with fishery problem of the day, is stated, 'The United Kingdom has, as a matter of policy, reflecting defence and strategic considerations favoured only at three-mile territorial sea up to now. However, if the forthcoming United Nations conference produces a treaty regime endorsing a 12-mile territorial sea and this treaty comes into force and is accepted by the United Kingdom, many of the present problems as to Manx jurisdiction over coastal waters and fisheries will evaporate. The acceptance of a 12-mile territorial sea by the United Kingdom would of course mean that complete jurisdiction at present exercised up to a distance of three miles would become exercised up to 12 miles if the new 12-mile zone is identical in all its attributes in law to the old three- mile zone. I can think of no logical or legal reason which the United Kingdom Government could advance to deny Tynwald the enlarged jurisdiction around the Isle of Man. Her Majesty's Government might try as a matter of policy to argue that Tynwald's sphere of legislative competence should not be increased, the mainstay of their present objections to such an increase. The alleged extra-territorial legislative incompetence of Tynwald would, however, have disappeared.' Your Excellency, Her Majesty's Government have accepted 12-mile territorial waters; I can see no reason why we too cannot share that particular international convention. Now, Your Excellency, there is a mention of 1992 and the Common Market, but what I find significant is that there is no reference to the experts who are going to advise the committee. What in fact does the Island know of the implications of 1992 at this moment? Frankly, I would say it has nothing to go on but conjecture. Now, Your Excellency, capital projects are in the region of some £30 million: office blocks, a new ward block at Noble's, extension to the Q.E.II and the report on page 13 acknowledges the need to limit the extent to which Government competes

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T115 with the private sector for scarce construction industry resources. In my view it needs also to limit them so that the Minister for the Environment can get the one essential that is paramount today, and that is housing — housing provision going on at a vastly increased level or pace to that being enjoyed at the present time. I recall that when capital projects come up, the proponents claim that the workers and contractors are specialists and that they are not taking anyone, really, away from the business of house building or refurbishment. To my mind it is nonsense. I would congratulate the housing minister, who is not present this morning, on his drive and enthusiasm, but I believe we make it impossible for him to function effectively as we do not acknowledge the difficulty of the labour market. Let me give you a constituency example. Before the last election the Chief Minister came to Laxey in good faith in respect of a refurbishment programme at Ballacannell, Lonan, a housing estate in my constituency. The tenants who attended a public inquiry were told 'Yes, everything will be done expeditiously' and this was, I believe, the truth in the mind of the minister of the day, but the time scale has doubled; the work is not complete. The contractor who is, I understand, a registered builder should be struck off both the registration line and fired off the site. His workmen are incompetent, they do more damage with respect to their refurbishment programme than they actually do in improvement as they go along. This is absolutely incredible and it is my contention that the ministry are in a cleft stick. They cannot get rid of the contractor, they want to finish the job and if they start changing now, well, they are going to be no better off because they are not going to be able to recruit the resources they want to get on with it. Now I am quoting that not as a criticism of anyone; I am quoting it as an example of how Government itself is unable to get on with refurbishment programmes and, I would also contend, with building programmes if it was in fact to extend those building programmes meaningfully for the future. Now, Your Excellency, this is at a time when evictions are widespread. I have people in my own village at Laxey — eviction notices, premises to be changed over to offices. The planning to change those homes to offices has already been approved. I am not arguing whether the decision is right or wrong but what I am saying is that there is so much planning approval given for office accommodation that it is certainly having its effect on people who are in flats, who have to vacate those flats and premises in order to make way for the office development that is to follow. Is it not time to consider slowing down the office line to enable the housing line to come along in step with it? Your Excellency, the eviction line, the failure to have an adequate council house programme going in the last Government's term of office when we were told the council stocks were more than adequate to meet the future — all these have contributed to the problem that is being faced by the ministry today and which is the most important problem that is being faced, not only by the ministry but by this House. Yesterday we heard of traditional industries and I believe, like hon. members, that there is a need to hold what we can of traditional industries. However, tourism and agriculture have been so weakened that there is little prospect, I believe, of a meaningful revival, communications referred to by the hon. member for Middle to communications that can be attributed at least the partial demise of the tourist industry; to complacency, the demise of the agricultural industry. Here again, you have a situation where, if you spoke of the plunging fortunes of agriculture in the

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T116 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 past, you were crying wolf, but today the wolf is really at the door. You look at the figures here and you find production has slumped despite Government incentives. You find, as the hon. member for Douglas North illustrated, the product being sold off the Island. Now how is it that anyone can sell a product off the Island when there is a local market on the doorstep and face at the same time the enormous transport charges — and they are enormous — that are incurred in moving to that other market? It is simply because the system of marketing is haywire. The system of Government premiums, which need not be in line with England, certainly needs improving because you can say there is a 15 per cent. loss on premiums here compared to England which would be a sort of standard figure that you could apply. All this contributes to a deterioration in the industry's ability to perform and, to top it all, despite having the best animal health record in the British Isles, we cannot export to the U.K., on the grounds of animal health, a lot of our products. I know the minister has this in mind and I wish him success with his efforts because, until we can open the door and export outwards and take part in the European scene of 1992, then we are going to be faced with the downward spiralling of this industry. Your Excellency, I just want to make one point with regard to agriculture and it relates also to planning. We are moving back to a modern version of the days when the Island had a crofting scene, the male went to the fishing, the wife stayed home and looked after the croft. We are moving towards an area where an increasing number of agriculturists will be actually working in factories for five days or less in the week and the balance of their time will be spent on their holdings. It is essential, as these units which retain people on the countryside come into being, that there is the associated planning to provide them with the housing, because it is only the economic factor that is driving them out of the countryside but we need to retain their love of the countryside and their skills in that setting for the future. Your Excellency, it is this change which concerns me. We talk of heritage and reference is made to it but the fabric of the countryside, which is part of our heritage, is changing; we need to maintain the schools, the halls, the pubs and an awareness of nature's supreme authority which country people have. This is the fabric, Your Excellency, which Government must seek to preserve, and on this point of heritage I welcome the Government's increasing interest in the rich heritage that we have inherited. It is pleasing to note the Museum is getting increased support; it is pleasing to find that at last there is a move to make Castle Rushen come alive and present it as it should have been presented years ago; it is great to find that at Cregneish there is to be a living display for the future. These are all things which have been thought of as desirable but at least this Government is moving towards actually making them work. But that is not enough. The Heritage Foundation will be looking for more support in its work for the future. It needs, through some agency of Government, to have the ability — and I will give you a project in mind, the restoration of the old House of Keys at Castletown, restored in conjunction with the development of Castle Rushen. That is a project we will be coming forward to get the support of Government on in a team concept with Castletown Commissioners and the local Heritage Trust. In Peel, in Laxey, indeed in Castletown a lot, of work is being done to stimulate heritage but there must be some sort of agency to enable those who are engaged in the voluntary effort to have the backing of Government when there are major expenditures required to produce the overall effect which is going to be beneficial to the Isle of Man. Now I would acknowledge

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T117

most sincerely, in respect of Laxey, the support of the Tourist Board, the support of the Forestry Board, indeed the support of the Department of the Environment, Highways and Properties — they have all been good, but there is so much more if you want to develop a concept professionally today and make it capable of standing up alongside concepts such as Beamish, Ironbridge and so on and this we have to do, but, in seeking an extra degree of support for the future for the Heritage Foundation, I would point out that we are trying to stimulate the production of works of art in the Isle of Man, of books which illustrate a heritage such as this which has just come to my hand today, which is a Manx Crosses Illuminated by Maureen Costain Richards, a valuable work in respect of Manx heritage. This is just a tiny example of the work we are doing and of the work we hope to do in conjunction with the schools because, hon. members, unless you can implant into the mind of the child a knowledge of his country and, as the hon. member for Peel said yesterday, a knowledge of language, a knowledge of a way of life, then you are facing defeat and it is from the schools we must work forward in our thinking in respect of heritage. Now, Your Excellency, on a very different issue, airports, I notice that airports are on the one hand scheduled for extension at Ronaldsway and on the other hand Jurby is being examined as to its future potential. Now I would say that the time has come for Government to look very closely indeed as to what the needs of 2000 and beyond are going to be in respect of aviation and in respect of this Island. I do not want to see Ronaldsway extended at this moment to a degree that there is no coming back, because Jurby must be explored as the one airport, I think, that can effectively meet the needs of this Island for the future, and I would point out two examples of where one development damns forever, or certainly for a very long time, the aspirations of an organisation, and that would be Noble's Hospital. Noble's Hospital is on entirely the wrong site; it is so circumscribed, it is so totally inadequate in its ability to provide for the public need that, if it was looked at today and you were starting afresh, you would not start at that particular place in Douglas. But what tied Government to Noble's Hospital? It was in fact the building of the nurses' home and, once that was done, you were held to the site and development went on around and around and around until there we have a hospital, splendid in its operation but most difficult, I would imagine — and I have some experience of this — to administer and run effectively. It is in the wrong place. Now let us not make the mistake of putting our airport for the future in the wrong place without fully examining the proposition. Now, Your Excellency, we have heard something of sport here and I am not going into the wider realms of sport this morning, the issue which exists between the supporters of one venue and the supporters of another, but I would ask that where an individual shows merit in sport Government might be reasonably generous in their support of such an individual. At Laxey we have a Working Men's Institute which dates back to the days of the miners, a couple of snooker tables down there and, from time to time, we get some talent. We produced recently a young man who has international potential. In order to exploit that potential and develop his own authority in snooker he has to go to New Zealand to participate in competitive work there. He has been offered, I understand, £50 from the Sports Council towards achieving an objective which, if it were to come off, even if he gets in the first four — this is World League stuff. Now I would regard that as inadequate support for

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T118 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

a sportsman from whatever field who is showing the kind of ability that this young lad is showing, and I would ask those who are related to the sporting side to look at that particular case and any others like it who may be showing their ability to come through and put the Island on the map in the world of sport. Now, Your Excellency, I suppose finally I would add my plea for support to the victims of our success, because inevitably there are people who are not enjoying the overall success which the Government has created in the Island. These are the people who have been referred to throughout the debate — the people of limited means, the borderliners, too rich to qualify for support, too poor than do other than eke out a miserable existence. Last year the Treasury Minister showed his compassion and, if Government follows his example and recognises the need of these people and the need to provide homes for the homeless, then it will be shown to practise what it preaches.

Mr. Barton: Your Excellency, hon. members, yesterday the Chief Minister moved his policy document. It is worth re-examining some of the points he made and the contributions made yesterday by the hon. members. The Chief Minister highlighted and amplified some of the points laid out in that document. We had a progress report and notes of caution both from the Chief Minister and from other hon. members. The Island has just emerged from a depressed period and things are going well and the future looks bright, but I am glad to hear that all must benefit from this improvement, both financially and socially. The Social Issues Committee has much to address. The last speaker of yesterday was the Minister for the Department of Health and Social Security, who expanded and underlined the policy for the future of his ministry. On the point when these measures come to this hon. Court we trust that these will be given full support. The hon. member for Peel was right, and she has a right, to press for attention for a Manx identity for the Isle of Man. The Chief Minister had already spelt that out earlier in the day but, please, we must not reject necessary advice and support from support sources if it is for the Isle of Man benefit and compatible with the policy of Government. I think the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, wants the Chief Minister to change into a Mrs. Thatcher. He was right, of course, that the Chief Minister should say no — consensus government, yes, but to a point, and there can only be one leader and he should firmly deal with any transgressions; he has the authority and I trust that he will have the support of this hon. House when he uses it. He can move his team and hon. members, and he should not be afraid to do it for the Island's good now. We have recently seen some changes to losses from the departments and we have lost some senior personnel. The Chief Minister is in the position to ask why and take firm appropriate action. The hon. member for Middle outlined P.R.O. and the handling of the Poole Report. He is right. Let the Government firmly state that the full report is a good useful guide document but stress that it is a guide. Kill once and for all that its recommendations are written in tablets of stone. More damage, I think, has occurred by the handling and implementation of this document than the comments on salaries. The Civil Service has lost good people because of an inflexible and sometimes unsympathetic approach. We have a good staff; let us assist it and develop it.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T119

The Chief Minister and the hon. Minister for Local Government firmly spelt out the accommodation priorities. It is clear where the hon. Mr. Delaney is going with his department in this very important and pressing area. Some good points came out and criticisms on planning which I am sure he took note of. Your Excellency, the hon. member for West Douglas Mr. Cain gave us a clear comment on the policy document and his emphasis on a clearer Government policy directive. I am afraid he confused one or two of us a little with the stressing of a need to spend more of this year's surplus as a priority in relation to people in need, but this — he corrected himself later when listing the priorities and addressing and he headed these as increasing reserves as a priority, as he did last year. The Minister for the D.H.S.S. — he knows he is addressing an improved package of support for the less fortunate. This package must and will be targeted for the less fortunate. We have not invested enough and quickly enough in information technology. We need and are lacking in the necessary information which is necessary for planning and implementing our policies. We are benefitting from an increased investment in the Island, and I do not mean just financial. We must not frighten this investment away but channel it to our better use. We must widen the economic base; I agree we should take advantage of the wide range of retired expertise that we have in the Island, and I trust that the new committees of Executive Council will tackle this and use these people. I think we all agree, Your Excellency, 1992 is looming; it is vital that we take cognisance of this and all interested parties and invest in the best possible advice now. Your Excellency, we have a shortage of trained and experienced staff. Why do we continue with the rule of compulsory retirement of ladies at 60 and men at 65? This was brought in a few years ago when unemployment was high. This must be addressed now, not in a few month's time. We are losing now experienced people from the service that come in this category. Government income is at present strong and we must not be afraid of using it, but we must seek value for money, as the hon. Mr. Cain for West Douglas spelt it out. We must help the less well off and not spread support too thinly for everyone. We must carry out on improving our health and welfare facilities, but with was such a massive budget we need more than ever to ensure we are getting value for money. Your Excellency, the forecast capital expenditure, as many members have said, is very high and the Chief Minister and his ministers must establish a very clear list of priorities. They must clearly consider the further capital and revenue implications of this package for the future. The present programme is desirable but we must consider what is necessary, more importantly what is achievable. We must take note of the present carry-over dilemma and be more realistic with our programme. In June I invoked the fierce lash and tongue of the Minister for Tourism re the aqua leisure centre. It is still listed as a priority and I was reassured by what many members said yesterday, that we should examine this in the list of priorities. We need a swimming pool, we need a running track, be it at St. Johns. Let us get on with it and add what other desirables we need when it is practical to do so. In June I stressed the need for a joint Government and private investment in the leisure centre and I noted what the hon. Mr. Cain said yesterday, who underlined this in his presentation. I trust that we will hear more about the M.E.A. plans re the power station for, as printed in the policy document, the potential output from this present

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T120 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 investment is only just higher than the peak requirements in December 1987. Home Affairs, Your Excellency — what is delaying the bringing up to strength of the fraud and drugs squads? In education I trust that we will see early investment for pre-school children. I note the investment in special needs and I trust that this is enough. The very high investment over the past three years for senior school children appears on the face of it disproportionate and I trust that there is a reappraisal in this area and a check that we are getting value for money from this investment and that there is no waste. I think, hon. members, we look forward to a long overdue earnings survey and family expenditure survey. The policy and its controls are encouraging but it will need a discipline to follow it through, taking into account the qualities of life outlined in the October 1987 document.

The Governor: I call upon the .ion. and gallant member for Peel. (Laughter)

Brig. Butler: Your Excellency, I would like to start by making it quite clear, following the example of the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, that I do not wish a knighthood! I already have quite enough trouble with the hon. member for Peel in respect of the title that I do hold, and I really would not know what to do with another. I am, however, going to devote a little time to phrasing the Chief Minister and I think that looking back, as several other members have done over the past two years, the turbulence and the problems and the challenges and the tremendous developments that have gone on, one can only praise him for the resolution and the tenacity with which he has tackled them. He has quite exceptional qualities, I find, to listen and to grasp; his humanity, his integrity, his common sense — they are all marvellous qualities for us to have in a leader and, as I have said before and I will say it again, he is the only Chief Minister that we have and he has my confidence and my support. He — I think some are not so happy with this — has a consensus approach, he is very pragmatic in the way he tries to tackle and sort out problems. I think we have all learned, having come into politics, that it is not easy to find instant solutions. It is very easy to think of them, but to actually make them work to actually remember all the problems and the restrictions and restraints that are involved in any particular course of action is another thing, and so on this Island we are very prone to jump up and say 'this is the way to solve the whole thing' and, in fact, nearly always there is not any black or white way; there are a lot of various shades of grey, and so I think we have to accept a pragmatic approach although, at the same time, I sometimes think that perhaps you can be too pragmatic; you do have to occasionally move a bit. I work on the Social Issues Committee and I do not think at this stage that one should talk about the results that we are producing, but there is no better way when you are tackling industrial relations, as we are, and residential control, as we are, and seeing just what I mean about the difficulties of applying instant solutions. I promise you, in neither of those areas are there instant solutions. We have done a lot of studying, we have considered a lot of options. I believe in one area we are going to come up with something but we are well in advance before we have actually agreed so I cannot talk about it, but I think in one area we are going to come up with something which I think is comprehensive and sensible and will do much to

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T121 solve a lot of existing problems and, I think, will be something the Island will be proud of. In the other area, quite honestly, I think what we are coming up with is about as good as one can come up with, but I really do not think it is very good. I mean it is a terrible problem. I use that to justify the sort of approach that the Chief Minister has adopted. I personally have been given a number of functions to carry out the for Government. If I may mention one, contingency planning, which the hon. member for Rushen is a very capable and energetic member of the same committee and here one is constantly wrestling with problems; we know what we need, we know what we have not got, but the problems of how to attain the end we are driving towards, and one knows that what we have got to do is to get people to recognise the priorities, recognise the needs and to drive towards them in a sensible way, but it is not going to happen quickly. Now I do believe after that the Administration has two particular Achilles' heels: one is the one of projection which has been referred to a number of times — it is not good at projecting itself, and I think this is something which the media would strongly support although I hope they would agree that at least it has made a much better effort. It may be maladroit but it is trying and I think that is an improvement, but it has got to go on getting its act better and better because the only way to govern is to take the people with you, particularly if you are talking of consensus government. The other Achilles' heel is that — and I do not propose to dwell on this — of executive control. This is largely a matter of organisational structure and the way in which our particular Chief Minister would wish to exercise his authority. It is a question of the governmental organisation in terms of how the politicians fit in, what Executive Council does; it is a term of also the Government machine, how the Civil Service works and how it is recruited and so on, and I am not delving into that big problem, but it certainly is a problem and it is certainly a weakness at the moment, that we have difficulty in implementing our decisions, and indeed, even deciding what they should be. I think in executive control you have to first establish your objectives, you then have to allocate your priorities, you then have to take the necessary decisions and finally you have to implement and follow through the actions, but that is easier to say but very difficult to do. I now am going to confine myself to mentioning one item in the policy document. I, by and large, go along with the document, it is very broad and I do hope that, as the various decisions begin to emerge, there will be a lot more papers which will give us in detail, they will give us the small print how we are going to do the things that are laid out in the general principles in here. I have a lot of comments or many items; I will identify with a number of things already raised, for instance, by Mr. Speaker this morning, but the one particular item I would like to centre on now is the question of external relations. I think it is quite well dealt with in the document, I think the objective that is laid down there is, by and large, a good one. I think we should be moving towards a stronger form of self-government in a non- confrontational way. I think the emphasis given to the 1992 subject is important; 1992 — I tend to think it is not a date, it is a concept, but 1992 has enormous implications in the Island and we have to come out with something which both leaves us with the ability to trade within the Common Market without Customs barriers but also to continue our present financial status. If we cannot keep both those things our economy has no way of existing. Those are the foundation stones. We have got to have both those things; we cannot have one or the other. Now, I accept that

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T122 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

Government is studying this, is going towards this, I know reassurances have been given and that Protocol 3 will stand and it will meet what we need, and I could only underline that we must go on looking at that. The second aspect is constitutional, and here we have a complex situation. We are already tackling a number of the problems; there are more to be tackled and I say no more of that. But there is something which I think is not mentioned here which, for want of a better general description, I will call the modus operandi. We have, from day to day, to work with the United Kingdom. We are dependent in so many ways upon the United Kingdom. To be fair, the United Kingdom provides us generously with an enormous amount of support. It also, I am afraid in other areas rather takes advantage of us, but what we are lacking is an up-to-date, modernised, comprehensive modus operandi. I think the only way we are going to achieve this — and 1 will try and explain what I mean in more detail in a minute — is by a Governmental approach at a high level in which we sit down and establish a policy in which we explain to them the areas to which we want to change the nature of our relationships or the areas in which we need to create a nature of relationships, because in some areas when you are dealing with detailed problems you find there is not any clear ruling at all; you just do not know how it should work. But we do, on these day-to-day items need to have much better arrangements in many areas than we have got now. I am talking about a whole range of issues, I am talking about the Common Service Agreement, what we pay for, what we get — it is not at all clear. I mean, we are paying for some things that should be covered in the Common Services Agreement. Now, on the other hand, the U.K. maintain strongly that we do not pay enough for the Common Services Agreement. I suppose it will not be that long before we are going through this argument in this House again. Now it has been said several times that we are going to talk to the U.K. about this, particularly in respect of defence, but it is a pile of anomalies and it needs an agreed recognition of the communality of interests between ourselves and the United Kingdom and a formula for proceding. Other areas — Mr. Speaker mentioned the 12-mile limit and all that that implies, particularly the Continental Shelf mineral rights, the coastguards, for instance, we have just had, but I think what I would like to mention, because I am involved, as this hon. Court is aware, in the broadcasting study group which has just produced about a 300-page report and a whole host of queries and not many answers, but it is making a lot of progress, it is identifying a tremendous number of areas where we have got to do something and it is opening up a lot of opportunities for the diversification of the economy of this Island. The trouble, is Your Excellency, that we are tied by the Wireless Telegraphy Acts of 1949 and those.. I mean, according to the constitution we are independent except for foreign affairs and security, if I may oversimplify the situation, but of course, if you actually examine wireless telegraphy, we are not independent at all we have not got any rights, we are treated like a very minor county, and I can give you some horrific examples. It is not done through spite or contempt; it is done because some minor little civil servant who is dealing with licence fees or whatever has no concept of what the Isle of Man is; it issome little place with 75,000 citizens with no more rights than any other part of the United Kingdom, and that is the way in which we are dealt with. It is a very complex issue and do not think we can just go out and have our own Wireless Telegraphy Acts and solve all our problems just like that. We cannot; we have to

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T I 23 sit down with the U.K. and we have to discuss it. 1 personally believe — and I think this will come out of the study group — that we do in the longer term have to have our own Wireless Telegraphy Acts as we have our own Telecommunications Acts. It will be argued that in the field of wireless telegraphy — in 1949 it was so and today even more so — that the complexities of the world we are talking about are so enormous that we cannot do it on our own, and of course we cannot have the frequency bands and the technical representation at the high level conferences and so on which would enable us to be entirely independent. I accept that, but then, in the health area, we have not got the really big hospitals with the enormous backing that they need. In the education area we do not have our own universities; even if we established one on the Island, we would still need all the specialist universities, the legal training and all the rest of it, so we cannot exist without this support from the U.K., and I would like to see in this particular area the same sort of approach and the same sort of agreement that we have in those other areas which I have just mentioned. It needs study, it needs careful thought as to where we are going to go and needs communication to the U.K., but the point I really want to make is that I think we have to make a general approach to U.K. to tell them that we are coming, to tell them that we are getting our act together. I can tell you that what I am saying now and what all of you have said before and what is going to be said after this will all be read by a gentleman in the Home Office whose name I will not mention, but he is very friendly towards the Island, he is our representative in the Home Office, he is concerned with our interests, he has a job to do to try and look after us and of course he is also concerned with the United Kingdom interests, but I think it is here that we can send him signals that we are not just living in a pile of self pity and parochial views; we want to produce a solution for this Island that will work in the modern world. We want greater independence and, to be truthful, it is very much in the United Kingdom's interests to give us greater independence because if we were not independent, if we were dependent we would be a complete pain in the neck to the United Kingdom. We would be an economic and a political millstone. They have got some of them in the north- west of Scotland but, I mean, nothing like this one would be. It is in their interests to find us a role, to encourage us in that role and to have proper agreements on all the areas where our independence has some meaning — the financial status, the merchant shipping, wireless telegraphy, whatever — so that they have got some sort of say in what we are doing, some sort of dialogue. I have gone on, Your Excellency, about one particular aspect. I do think it is so important it needs airing and I will leave it to other members of the House to tackle the many other items which also deserve some importance.

Mr. L.R. Cretney: Your Excellency, as a very new member this is the first time that I have been present for this particular debate. I share the comments made by the last speaker with regard to the way the Chief Minister has approached his task. This is a new role and I for one have been most impressed while I have been here with the way in which he has tackled his work and the obvious understanding he has of a wide variety of subjects. I go along with most of the policy review. The only little criticism I would make is that sometimes, on looking at it, it is not so much a policy review as policy reviews, and it needs a little bit of bringing together and deciding which shall come first and in which order. To that extent I go along

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T124 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 part way with the criticisms made by the hon. member for West Douglas yesterday and I am sure he agrees with me that the policy review is an excellent document but that it does not go quite far enough, and I hope that when the Chief Minister comes to reply he may find it possible to accept some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for West Douglas. I was very interested to hear that the Chief Minister visualised an extension to the airport. I think it is obvious that the majority of foot passengers who want to come to the Isle of Man now are not so much interested in travelling to Heysham. I think, as years go by, more and more are going to use the airport and I think an extension is vital and I share Mr. Speaker's concern that we should make sure that Jurby is preserved, because I think it is going to be essential before long. I say that foot passengers come by air and I noted last week with interest that the Steam Packet is investing a large amount of money on making its boats bigger to take more cars not to take more foot passengers but more cars, and I think that is where the role of the Steam Packet Company in future is going to lie more and more — in commerce and in vehicles. I have a lot of sympathy with the Department of Tourism. I know that they come in for a lot of criticism; some of it no doubt is deserved but quite a lot undeserved. I think they are facing a daunting task. I think we all tend to look back on the days when Douglas was crowded from May until the end of September and we think that by some magic means, by building an aqua leisure centre or something like that, we are going to attract he crowds back again. I do not think we will. I think that, for reasons that have already been mentioned in this hon. Court, the bulk of that sort of visitor now goes elsewhere and I think even places like Blackpool and Scarborough are feeling the same sort of pinch. For instance, I noted last week that the last cinema in Scarborough is closing in the next fortnight so they have got similar problems to ours. But I do feel that if we are going to have more car drivers coming to the Island we must alter our methods to make sure that their stay on the Island is a full one and a happy one. Over and over again I find as I travel round that people come by car and they say that after two days they have done the Island, because they are still living in the era where people came to the Island, spent six days of the seven in Douglas or Douglas Head or Onchan Head and then had a coach tour on the Friday and went home and said that they had 'done the Isle of Man' and I think there is a danger today that, unless we structure our holidays properly, people are going to feel the same. People who come to the Island by car, by and large, are used to travelling 50 miles, 100 miles, where we would think we were going a long way if we were going from here to the airport, and I think we need to work out a way of structuring holidays for people so that they can spend a week here and find somewhere different to go every morning and not set off one day and go from Douglas to Ramsey and have lunch at Ramsey and then, in the afternoon, come back via Peel and feel that they have spent a profitable day. You could spend two days between Douglas and Ramsey if you searched for all of the items of interest — Laxey for example; you could spend a whole day there without any trouble at all, and I do think that that is one area in which the Department of Tourism might take a closer look. I am delighted, as a member for the constituency for Onchan, with the way the Department of Local Government and the Environment has addressed our particular problems in Onchan. Sheltered accommodation yesterday was mentioned and,

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T125 granted it is only a temporary help, people will possibly move out of their local government houses into the sheltered accommodation and it will give us a little bit of breathing space, but I think that we still need a continuous programme of local authority housing because this is an area where people who in years gone by would not have thought of applying or thinking of living in local authority housing because of the financial circumstances now find themselves with very little alternative. Mention was made yesterday of under-occupied houses and I know that this is a problem. Families frow up, families move out and you find elderly couples living in three and four-bedroomed houses and they are very reluctant to move; it has been their home, their families have grown up there, they have decorated the houses in a way that suits them, they have maintained them to a high standard and naturally they are a little bit reluctant to move out into something that possibly is not quite so good, but I think that it is a problem that we must face. Whether we attract them or encourage them by giving them a grant towards their moving expenses, whether we give them a grant to help them to bring the decorations and the furnishings of the property we want them to move into up to their standard, I think it is something that the department might well look at. I am delighted that the policy review emphasises again that, although there may be merits in the sale of public authority housing, for the moment they are not going along that way. The hon. member for North Douglas yesterday afternoon made mention of the sports halls that are being provided at the secondary schools throughout the Island. Well, I think I am right in saying that already those sports halls are being used by the community. I do not think that is anything that we have to ask for; I think it is already there. I am one of the people who share the view that we can be a little bit too grandiose in our views towards sports facilities. I think that if we get an all-weather track and if we get a good swimming pool with planning so organised if the need arises for extensions I think we are doing very well. As I say, I am very happy with most of the things I read in the policy review. I think that it indicates that Executive Council and the Chief Minister in particular are very, very well aware of the problems that lie ahead of us. The only little thing that I would say again is that I wish they were a little bit more of bringing the policy review together so that we had more detailed outline of what their view is of the immediate future. Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. May: Your Excellency, I feel a little bit more heartened this morning than I did yesterday evening when we rose for the evening. I think that hon. members have gone home and re-studied the document and looked at it in the context that it should be looked at. Yesterday I got the impression that some hon. members were looking at the document with the intention of trying to pick out the bad bits and underline those and ignore the positive bits that had gone on. What I would like to draw hon. members' attention to, Your Excellency, is on page 1, the very opening statement of the document itself. It says, 'The policy objective, a continuing guide'. A continuing guide — that is the phrase, sir, that underlines what it is all about. This is the second instalment of a phased programme of trying to restructure the economy of the Island and trying to ensure that every section and every individual within our community benefits from the benefits that are coming through now. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be undertaken in one year, to do everything in total. Nobody, least of all the Chief Minister, is saying in this document that

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T126 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 everything in the garden is rosy. We know, we are aware, that there is a long way yet to go. We know there are things that have yet to be done, but the time to cast aspersions is when the programme is near completion, not when it is half way through. What I would suggest to hon. members is that they give the Chief Minister the backing to ensure that collectively we can ensure that the people of the Island benefit, as indeed they should and will do. I was rather disheartened yesterday in the opening speech your Excellency when the hon. member for Peel stood up, and frankly, her speech brought to mind immediately that excellent phrase of the firm of Travis Dale and Partners, the tourist advertising agency, 'You'll look forward to going back'. You know, we have come forward significant steps in a very, very short period and yet people tehd to forget about that, they forget that two-and-a-half years ago there were two and a half thousand people out of work; the figure today is 817. That, I feel, is something that we can all be proud of, not just the members of Executive Council; I think every member of this hon. Court should be proud of the fact that in that short period of time we have managed to turn the whole thing round where we have a situation of relatively full employment. I was rather disturbed, Your Excellency and indeed offended by the suggestion by the hon. member for Peel that — the exact words were — she recommends Executive Council to go out and talk to people but 'these people think they are too good for that'. I think that, sir, is not the type of statement that should be made. I certainly pride myself on my connections with the people of the Isle of Man and being close to my constituents, to whom I am responsible, as I am sure the hon. member herself does. Because you suddenly become a member of Executive Council does not mean you forget your responsibilities to the people who put you there, and I think it is wrong to even suggest that any member of Executive Council would adopt that attitude. I have found in my short experience as a member of that body that indeed, far from that being the case, it is exactly the opposite. Executive Council do discuss things in detail, they are concerned and they are aware of what is going on in the Island. They are aware of the deficiencies that have yet to be tackled. We know the problems related to the old and the people in the grey area just above supplementary benefit level have yet to be tackled. Yesterday my hon. colleague, the Minister for the D.H.S.S. Mr. Brown, signified his department's intent in coming forward, as indeed he promised he would do last year, with proposals aimed at helping in that very area in the near future. That is a commitment to try and do something. You cannot realistically... and I know we would all look to have a Utopian society where we could wave some form of magic wand and cure all the ills overnight, but life unfortunately does not work like that and we have to accept that. What we have to do is make sure that ultimately we spread the net so that everybody is caught and everybody, no matter what section, no matter what level of achievement they have, but every member of the Manx community benefits from the growth in our economy. We live in a vastly changing world, Your Excellency, an exciting world where there are prospects now available to us as a nation which have never been available to us before. The opportunity is there to grasp these opportunities and see that we are setting up a base for future generations where they can enjoy the fruits of the prospects that are available today. You do not miss opportunities like that, you do not sit back; if you do, then we will end up going back, we will end up as an Island community with very little to offer to anyone, least of all ourselves,

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T127 and do any of us want to see that? I very much doubt it, Your Excellency. I for one certainly do not and I am darned sure that the people of the Isle of Man do not wish to see us go back. What we must do is take advantage of the opportunities that are available to us today and ensure that we use those opportunities to the best effect, which ensures that the Manx public are the people who benefit both in real tangible terms and in long-term prospects, because we are also dealing — and let us not forget it — with the lives of people in the future; we are not just dealing with solving problems today, we are trying to build a base for a future, for tomorrow, that, I feel, sir, is very important. I have underlined the decrease that we have seen in recent years in the unemployment levels. I recall that some three-and-a-half years ago, just a short period of time, when I first came in here the reserves available to Government were minimal; today the picture is different. Today we are developing and restructuring our society for the future. Of course there are things that need to be done, avenues that have to be gone down and there are problems that have arisen. Not the least of those problems is the one related to housing and we are all fully aware of the problems in that particular field, nobody more so than I. I have put forward suggestions on that particular problem. My department has actively given assistance, and tangible assistance, to the hon. minister with responsibility for housing to try and deal with this problem. Had it been looked at some time ago perhaps we would not have the depth of the problem that we have today, but we have to live with the facts as they are today. The hon. minister is trying to do his best; he has the full and whole hearted support of every member of Executive Council and, I am sure, every member of this hon. Court because all of us are fully aware that this is the major problem area, this problem related to housing, and I was delighted when yesterday the hon. Minister for D.H.S.S. Mr. Brown, drew attention to the people in the middle-aged group who are probably suffering more than anyone because the price now of houses and the resultant cost of mortgages for short-term repayment make it absolutely impossible for many, many people to even venture into the housing market although they would love to. So these are problems; they are problems that are being tackled there are no easy answers. We are not going to have Mr. Delaney's 500 houses built next month, but during the period. Certainly, if I can support in any way to bring this objective forward then I will do because it has to be an essential priority. We have a period now that is facing us where there Will be difficulties, but I would hope to see that ultimately, once we can get over that hump with a supply of realistically priced accommodation units on the market, this in itself will have a breaking effect on the overall escalation in house prices and will go some way to solving the problem. There are other problem areas: my hon. colleague Mr. Corrin yesterday identified one of the areas that my department is looking at with a view to investigating the possibility of establishing community and environmental projects. There are people who are unemployed today through no reason of their own. Their basic wish and desire is to work but for no reason of their own, for varying reasons, they find they cannot. My department has undertaken to try and look at this problem in the next few months and come forward with something constructive to try and help this group of people, to give them the opportunity to do a worthwhile job and gain self-respect and self-confidence in themselves, because there is nothing more demoralising for somebody who wishes to be in employment to be out of it, and

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T128 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 it leads to a lack of confidence, a loss of faith in yourself, so we would hope within the next few months to be able to submit to Executive Council proposals to try and look at that particular area. There are the problems related to employment rights and recognition of trade unions, and nobody, I would suggest, Your Excellency, has beaten this drum louder than I have in recent years. Nobody has shouted to try and get proper and effective social legislation implemented and on the statute book louder than i have. I am glad to say we are in a different situation this year than we were 12 months ago when I had to stand up and draw attention to the fact that there was no mention of the Redundancy Payments Bill within the policy document. This year there is. The Collinson Grant Report is due to be published shortly, and I am sure that that will then be a basis for a discussion document, which ultimately will lead to legislation and, not before time, much needed legislation in these particular fields, so these problems are being looked at. If I may, Your Excellency, I would like to spend a couple of minutes discussing the situation regarding my own department. When I was first appointed to the department some six months ago, I felt it was often described by my predecessor, the hon. President of the Council Mr. Anderson, as exciting and, having spent six months within the department and assessing and seeing exactly what is going on in the Isle of Man, I can only underline those sentiments, because it is exciting to see exactly what is going on now within the Island, and those of you who were kind enough to visit our exhibition over the weekend at the Sea Terminal, I am sure, will have gained some idea of the breadth and range of activities and opportunities that are available; the technological achievement that exists in the Island today and the quality and standard of Manx-made products and components are second to none, and I think the competitiveness now of the industrial world in general has justified the department's support of encouraging our existing manufacturers to become more and more efficient and productive, and this we will continue to do. One of the major problem areas within the industrial field at the present point of time has been referred to in general terms earlier on this morning by Mr. Speaker, and that is of lack of labour, so it is my department's problem and our wish to encourage our industrialists to develop themselves and become more and more efficient and productive by the use of machinery to upgrade their operations. These are problems we have to deal with within the future. I am confident it is a problem that can be overcome. We are trying to get the message across to our young people of the opportunities that exist today. It is something that we can all take a pride in, and certainly I would pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, who did much to develop the situation so that we have today a situation where all of our industrialists can look to the future, can look for expansion and growth. We have to, obviously, because of the situation now, somewhat put the brakes on promotional efforts and this, I think, naturally follows, but, having said that, sir, I think one of the most interesting facts that has come out of our annual survey of employment and added value statistics is the fact that over a six-year period the number of jobs actually within the industrial sector has increased by some 400. Now that statement as a figure on its own does not really seem very significant, but when you add to that that on average, for each year of that period, there have been some 200 job losses within the sector for varying reasons — companies that have disappeared or been swallowed up — varying reasons, then

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T I 29 you get a truer picture, then you get a figure of some 1,300 jobs created in that sector in a short period of time. That is something that I think belies the fact - and it is a message that we should get across — that the Island is putting all its eggs in one basket and depending on the financial sector all the time. The industrial sector is of great importance and is making now significant contributions to our Island economy. During the course of the debate, sir, there have been mentions of the problems related to planning. I do not want to go into the broad general aspects of planning but there is one particular aspect which has been the subject of discussion during yesterday and that is the system that we now operate under of appeals whereby the Minister of Local Government and the Environment has the ultimate power in planning matters. Now hon. members may well recall that when this issue first came up for debate within this Court some time ago, when the old appeals tribunal was eventually abolished and power transferred to an inspector with the minister given the power to veto any decision, I opposed that particular suggestion at the time, and one of the reasons I expressed for opposing it, sir, was that I felt there was a danger that not necessarily the present encumbent of the job but a Minister sometime in the future of Local Government and the Environment may well be faced with a situation where constituency pressures may be placed on him to overrule a decision that had been made by the Planning Inspector and that was one of the reasons that I opposed that particular move at the time. Now on the two occasions that this has happened, that this power has been exercised, I am glad to say that my hon. colleague has proved that this has not been the case; in fact, on the contrary, the hon. member has defied constituency pressure to overrule a decision in the national interest, and that was the decision, as we all know, in relation to the car park in Chester Street. The other area in which he has exercised this particular right was the application of Strix Limited for the extension in Castletown. Now this is an application which went through the planning stages and was turned down on very, very marginal grounds by the inspector, and my department, obviously supporting industry... and I would say here and now, sir, that this company is the largest Manx company in existence within the Island today, it employs some 350 people, they are expanding in Ramsey, there is a new factory being built at this present point in time and they make a significant contribution to the overall economy of the Island, not least within the south of the Island. The hon. minister took that fact on board and made his decision that in the national interest that extension should go ahead. I would certainly applaud the minister's decision in that respect, Your Excellency, because that kind of contribution to our overall economy must be recognised as being of national importance. We must recognise the importance of the contribution made by industry as a whole. The G.D.P. contribution now is almost £40 million, so I feel for the minister when he is faced with this type of decision because, as has been more than adequately pointed out during the course of yesterday on several occasions, in any planning decision somebody is going to be upset. It does not matter whether it is the applicant or the objector, but one side or the other is going to be upset and somewhere someone down the line is faced with the political responsibility of making that decision. The minister stood up to that responsibility and faced it and made it in what he felt, and I would certainly cocur, were the best national interests of the people of the Isle of Man. So, Your Excellency, I would say to hon. members that what we are looking at

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T130 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 today is an on-going situation. There is a long way to go yet; nobody is trying to suggest otherwise. I read an editorial on Monday which suggested that when things are going well is the time when complacency creeps in. There is no room for complacency at the present point of time. In my own area, underlining the numbers of jobs that have disappeared and been created within a six-year period, it underlines the fact that we cannot afford to be complacent. We have to be sure that things are in the wings and we are catering for any eventualities of the future. What I would say to hon. members today is, accept and support the policy document that is laid before you. We are all in this together, it is not a case of Executive Council and the rest. There are 33 members of this hon. Court and we all have our role to play and I would say, sir, that the way forward is to support this document today and in 12 months' time let us look then to how far we have advanced within that period.

Mr. Catlin: Your Excellency, I will commence on a good note by referring to one of the good bits which came out of yesterday's debate. I was pleased to hear from the minister of the D.H.S.S. that he believes that acute psychiatric patients should be admitted to a general hospital such as Noble's rather than Ballamona Hospital. Now, I hope he obtains better co-operation in bringing this about than was forthcoming in the past. The sooner there is an acute psychiatric ward on the Noble's site the better, because, hon. members, this type of patient should not be placed in Ballamona Hospital. This is a view which is held very strongly by the psychiatrists themselves and have held it for many years and I can say, from my association with them, that they do care for their patients. Now, Your Excellency, I will confine my comments on the policy review to my own department. The Department of Highways, Ports and Properties has been brought together from three separate boards, concerned with internal and external transport services and infrastructure works along with the Government Property Trustees and the drainage section of the former Local Government Board. In addition, the responsibilities received from the former Harbour Board include the vigorous international marine administration and shipping register, which bears little resemblance in its functions, methods of workings or responsibilities to any other part of the department. To date it has been difficult to achieve the bringing together of these responsibilities, mainly through the lack of staff at senior administrative level to carry out the management and works integration and organisational work, and because of the need to expend large amounts of staff time on internal communications and briefing between sections. In the absence of a formal and planned management structure embracing the whole department, however, we hope to achieve more in the next 12 months than it has been possible to do in the past two years. The appointment of a Chief Executive of the department, who is due to take up his post on 1st November, will enable the department to bring its technical and administrative policies together and to secure efficient means of carrying out these policies. It will allow for recommendations to be put to the department as to priorities to be followed, including the development of adequate financial management and control systems as recommended in the Poole Report. On the matter of office accommodation for Government, the department is responding to pressures for modernisation of office accommodation and public buildings — for instance, the Court House and Legal Registry — and is responding

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T131 to the growth of the management and financial functions of the Civil Service and members of Government, a growth which would appear to be likely to become consolidated following the Poole Report. The department is working with the Manx Museum towards the transfer of the castles and Laxey Wheel and Mines as well as the Odin's Raven Museum in the interest of specialised protection and development. The Queen's Pier at Ramsey is now being considered for bringing within the agenda for heritage project development, and the harbours and properties side of the department will be reconsidering the future of the pier in the light of its antiquarian and heritage role for the future visiting industry at Ramsey. We are, in fact, about to set up a working party to include officers from the Department of Tourism and Transport. With regard to air and sea communications it is the policy of the department to bring the airport to the position of self-financing and it is anticipated that this could be achieved this year. From 1st November the airport will have extended opening hours in an effort to generate new business, particularly in the freight and charter areas. However, this growth does put a strain on the physical facilities at the airport, and in order to anticipate future developments the department has commissioned British Airport Services of Gatwick to prepare a report on future growth in air traffic and on the physical development of the airport and its facilities that will be necessary to match the growth that might be envisaged. Likewise the department hopes to commission a report on harbours to update that of 1972 and which was carried out by the National Ports Council. This is necessary because of changing patterns of the sea traffic, particularly cargo, at our harbours in Douglas and Ramsey and the need to take into full account the question of possible marina developments at various harbours in the interest of tourism. The future of marine administration and the Manx shipping register is largely determined by international fiscal trading and commercial factors and, with the growth of the international registers in Norway and Denmark in particular, the future position of Hong Kong and now the possibility of a European community shipping register, the D.H.P.P. and other departments are going to have to work very hard to secure the future to the advantage of Manx and British seafarers and our Manx ship management companies. The department is very involved at present making arrangements for the transfer of the coastguard inshore search and rescue service to the Island's jurisdiction from April 1989 and to ensure that the off-shore services at sea will be adequately covered by the UK. Dealing with highways, the department has received a report on parking in Douglas and is considering this at present. The department is also in consultaltion with the Douglas Corporation over the state of cleanliness of the streets in the town. With regard to the highway network, the department will this year be concentrating its resources on routine maintenance work rather than an upgrading or improvement of roads although certain on-going schemes such as Quarter Bridge will continue to completion. Last but by no means least 1 want to mention that the drainage and foul sewage network, including disposal facilities, is an absolute priority for allocation of resources of finance, technical investigation, works and management, and as the works to be undertaken are identified by investigation or by the nature of development schemes or populaltion growth, then such resources should be provided.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T132 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

It has to be remembered that certain local authorities are the responsible drainage authorities and it will be necessary for them to play their full part in this work. Your Excellency, this leads me on to what was said by the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, during yesterday's debate. He stated that the sewage system is a serious problem and should come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Local Government and the Environment. Now my reply to Mr. Corrin is: it is a serious problem and I need no one to tell me that, but whether or not it should be transferred to the Department of Local Government and the Environment is a matter of opinion. I have certainly no strong feelings either way, but I must point out that the sewage and drainage was with the Local Government Board until a year last December. The problems that we have to deal with have certainly not originated within the past two years. I will remind Mr. Corrin that our technical staff in this division numbers three persons, backed up with one female Clerical Officer, and it is not possible to do all that we should with this number of technical staff. I would like to draw hon. members' attention to paragraph 4 on page 53 of the report where it states that the responsibilities of the D.H.P.P. in relation to drainage and sewerage are to create a foul sewerage and sewage disposal serving all the Island and which meets with recognised environmental standards and the overall needs of the Island's growing population, together with its developing industrial commercial base. Now, considerable sums of capital moneys have been included, as hon. members must be aware, in the current year's estimates and I do not want to go through them all, but they are very considerable: Ronaldsway drainage area, £100,000, column 2 item this year; Douglas and Onchan sewerage, £100,000, column 2 item this year, and so on. The question was asked, was I planning the sewerage systems to turn inland and away from the sea? Now again, my answer to this question is that we are awaiting consultants' reports with recommendations and I am unable to say more at this time. I have a resolution, again as everybody is aware, on the disposal of sewage sludge later on today's Tynwald Agenda, and I will quote just three lines from my brief, which I will use later: 'It is thought prudent that standards adapted on the Island are compatible with the latest department of the environment and E.E.C. recommendations. That principle applies equally to sewerage systems as it does to sludge disposal'. The hon. member for North Douglas, Mrs. Delaney, said, 'Stop taking T.V. pictures of the sewerage systems and get on with the work of dealing with the problem' — I think those were the words Mrs. Delaney used. To this my reply is that we want to, but it has to be remembered we are dealing with a massive problem which will be very costly indeed and we have to be certain that whatever course of action we take is the right one. There are no short cuts which can be taken without taking risks and which I am not prepared to accept. If I could refer, Your Excellency, to a statement that was made in Tynwald yesterday — the matter itself is not important but I believe the principle is — I am referring to what was said by the hon. member for Peel, Mrs. Hannan, and she brought up in yesterday's Tynwald about work which is going on at Tynwald Road, Peel, and she said that she understood that men are about to be pulled out before the works are completed, then brought back at a later date to finish the job, and she asked for the work to be continued and finished. Now the principle, I would have thought, with anybody with a question like that could have telephoned the department and got the answer rather than bring it up here, and I would say that

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T133

I contacted the Surveyor-General on this matter because I had no personal knowledge whatsoever, and the Surveyor-General informed me this morning that so far as he is aware there is no intention — it is not even true — of taking the men off this work until it is finished. If they were to be taken off, there would be a very good reason such as a shortage of materials or unavailability of necessary equipment. Now all I would say, hon. members — nearly every member, if they have a question or a problem of this nature, if they telephone the office at the Sea Terminal or even if they approach me, will get the answer. They do not have to raise it in Tynwald and it is even worse when it is not even true.

Mr. Quirk: Your Excellency, I do support this policy review and it is a review in the all sense that it is meant to be. I suppose we could remember that it is only 18 months ago when the Chief Minister first brought in his policy report, which was meant as a discussion document, and a year ago he brought in his second document which was entitled 'A Prosperous and Caring Society' and today he has come forward with another document which gives us the opportunity three times in 18 months to discuss the policy and the direction we are going in the Isle of Man, and I think we must appreciate that, although there is perhaps a lack of definition in some areas here, there is the intent and purpose behind this review to assure me that we are going in the right way. I said I am supporting this document, but I can align myself in a way to some of the statements that were made by the hon. member for West Douglas, and I believe, sir, that we must not, as far as our reserves are concerned, become obsessed with the idea of getting as much in the bank as we possibly can. It is the people of the Isle of Man of today that have created the wealth and it is the people of the Isle of Man today that we really want to see that are not in need and we can look after them as a prosperous and caring society. I certainly agree with Mr. Cain in that respect and I do feel that this is something that must be done in various aspects of our legislation and of our policy and of our Government. The greatest need... and this was emphasised very clearly to me only a few days ago when I met some people who were demonstrating at a television demonstration, and one young man with a family, wife — we were talking about various things and he said that you cannot really value law and order and the quality of life in the Isle of Man, and that was a striking statement to come from a young man who does not live here but he had seen the way of life that we have, and I hope that the wealth that we have created will be used in any way possible to carry out and maintain and protect that absolutely important principle. I believe, sir, that flexibility runs through all our arrangements, all our legislation in the Isle of Man. I feel that there is room for flexibility in most cases and I would just like to comment on our health services. It is one of the most important ministries in the Island and I am delighted to hear from the minister that the community care is now being progressed as quickly as possible. To me, I think that to provide medical services in every part of the Isle of Man is an absolute must and there again, whether it is budgeted for or not, the surpluses in the Isle of Man must be spent in that particular direction. I was interested to hear the minister comment yesterday on the fact that they were now going to change the name of Ballamona or they were looking at that in some depth. This has been discussed many and many a time; it is one thing that everybody wanted to do — to create a right image for Ballamona and indeed for all our hospitals, but I would like to draw the attention of the minister

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T134 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

— and I am sure he knows this — and the members that it is only a few years ago that in Ballamona they had an average bed occupancy of over 300; now that is down to 235 and I think this is the message that should be spelt out to the people of the Isle of Man: that psychiatry is an important element in our medical dealings, and really psychiatry is an illness which is now being proved by efficient medical care in Ballamona that this is something which is being treated now and there is a cure, and that is something that I think should be spelt out very, very carefully and very emphatically to the people in the Isle of Man. Psychiatric conditions are no longer a stigma; they are something that we understand is a sickness and can be treated and can be cured. I do appreciate, Mr. Minister, your efforts on behalf of getting the medical care spread all over the Isle of Man. I think it is a tremendous achievement and, as I said, it must be supported by any money that we have available. Flexibility — it is not so many years ago — less than many years ago! — that in our attempts in education to provide education for everybody it was suggested or it was a policy programme, a programme that came forward, that a new school should be built at St. John's. Now incorporated with that idea was the advice from certain sections that the catchment area of that school should be spread beyond Foxdale, and this meant that Foxdale school would be closed. I am very, very grateful to find that now Foxdale is one of the first... it has a priority in the education authority, and indeed I was rather struck by the account that goes in front of the planning for a school, and that is the planning situation where now they are actually engaged in finding out the different needs for building a school in that area, and one of the points that we were going to do was to actually take a dust content in Foxdale, and I can only say that if you do find a dust content in Foxdale it will be the most valuable thing you ever had in the Isle of Man, because people in Foxdale who have breathed this dust all their lives — and Foxdale has got a reputation for longevity and health — this would be a most wonderful find. It is the dust there that really maybe keeps them alive (Laughter), so we have immediately a new industry formed, but I am sure that every effort will be made to get on with that school as quickly as possible because it is the community life of Foxdale, it is the community life of every village, and I want to include in that a comment which was made by my colleague yesterday on the planning as it affected the villages in his area. I too would say, although a little differently than what he said, that it is the planning of villages that is very important, and today, when we are forced to confine our building within a village, this immediately has a great effect on the price of a plot of land and consequently I see, not only in my own village but throughout the Isle of Man, the growth of a population which can contribute very little to a school population. It is only people of wealth and probably elderly people who come to live in these particular areas, because the young people of our area or other areas cannot afford to buy these plots of land, and I wonder, can we do something about that situation? Plots of land are the initial cost; the great cost today is the cost of a plot of land, and if we can in some way bring that plot down to a realistic value then I think we would be doing a great service to the people of the Isle of Man. It was mentioned, and has been mentioned quite a few times yesterday, the impact of sports on the Isle of Man and we all realise how important sports are in the Isle of Man. I just make one plea today for the sports organisations of our Island, and that is in the competitive world and this is what it is all about. I agree we should

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 TI35

have a running track and the compact should be built up gradually to form whatever is needed for the sports organisations in the Isle of Man, but today we have a situation where many of our sports organisations are now competing not only in the Isle of Man but across the water. An instance next month — the Western Athletic Society organisation will be competing against a team from Sale, and they will be bringing on average 50 people to the Isle of Man, and I think it is absolutely important that we should recognise and support these organisations to give them the opportunity of going across the water and competing as much as we possibly can. I know there are concessionary fares in this particular case, but young people probably ten and under cannot afford £30 or whatever it is to go across more than once or probably twice a year. I would like to see a situation where these young people, and organisations of every type of sport, go away and compete and it is bringing more and more people back to the Isle of Man as a recipropity. Finally, Your Excellency, may I just say that I believe, with this wealth that we have, we must look after our own people. We will do that. I am sure the Chief Minister has that very much in mind, and everybody else as well, but I must just mention that we have a situation now where young people go from the Isle of Man, they take on jobs — and recently we have had the President's son who has come back from one of these assignments; now we have another young man who has gone away to, I believe it is, New Guinea to educate or help in the education of people there as a team of five or six, and I make a plea that we in the Isle of Man, keeping very much in mind the needs of our own under-privileged people, should increase and make our contributions to this sort of situation much more realistic than it is at present. I hope that we will all support the policy review as I very much do myself.

Mr. D.C. Cretney: Your Excellency, there are a number of areas that are of particular concern to members, and if today I can speak on basic rights with particular emphasis on the right to have adequate housing, the right to comfort and security when you get older and the right in a more buoyant economy for all to have a share. As far as I am concerned, one of the most basic yet fundamentally important rights and one that is part of a very complicated equation is housing. I believe the records show that on the Island we accept this importance in Governmental terms by accepting deficiencies across the board on housing. On the provision of sheltered accommodation, for example, in 1984/85 the deficiency was £402,696; '85/86, £386,953; in '86/87 £441,408, and in the House Purchase Scheme in '84/85, £358,954 of which there was a write-off of £86,062; in '85/86, £18,429 deficiency, in '86/87, £288,182 of which there was a write-off of £216,453, and of course, given that Government supported mortgages to the extent of £25 million, there is a subsequent half a million pounds in income tax allowance plus, of course, those on private mortgages claiming relief. It therefore follows that if we are looking across the board at deficiencies on housing we must look at the overall deficiencies on local authority and Local Government Board housing, and if we assume approximately 4,950 dwellings, in 1984/85 the total deficiency was £80,271 or, over the year, £16.22 per dwelling or 32p a week. In 1985/86 the deficiency was £59,403 or, over the year, £12 per dwelling or 24p per week. In 1986/87, £138,311 deficiency; that is, over the year, £27.94 per dwelling or 54p per week, and now I understand the figure

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T136 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 may come out for 1987/88 at £37.85 over the year or 73p per week and, incidentally, in '83/84 the figure was £46 per dwelling or 86p per week, so despite claims in some of the local Press that the council house subsidies were costing the taxpayer a small fortune, the facts prove conclusively that, judged in overall terms, that is not the case. We have also heard claims of people living in council properties who should not because they own blocks of flats. Now no-one should accept that it is right and proper for that to be the case but, at the same time, if that is the case it should be raised at the appropriate place rather than being used to sell newspapers. Having spoken to the officer in Douglas who is primarily responsible for housing, I am informed that no councillor has raised this matter officially at any Estates Committee meeting. We then come on to the broader question raised again yesterday by the hon. member for Council, Mr. Radcliffe, addressing the issue that people who can afford to should get out of council houses. As the hon. member for Castletown indicated yesterday, it is not as simple as that. If only it was! Many people have raised their families in local authority houses on low wages and then for a time two wages or three wages may be coming in to the house, but later on the family will inevitably move on and the householder will be no better off. If a householder has done well and got on, the chances are that by the time they are in a position to be able to afford their own properties they are not young enough to be able to take advantage of a low-priced mortgage. It is no use saying to a person in their late 40s or early 50s to simply get out and get a mortgage, particularly with the present housing problem. It is not so simple. This whole issue requires much more thought than it appears to be receiving, and incidentally, could I ask the hon. member for Council whether he considers agricultural subsidies should be given across the board or aimed more to help the young man in difficulty or who cannot get land to farm on this Island? Should we be saying that above a certain level of income producers should not receive deficiency payments? I do not hear calls for that at the moment. The rest of the housing issue is now receiving Government's attention and commitment and I again support the hon. minister, Mr. Delaney, and his commitment to achieve something positive and I am sure that that will happen. The right to comfort and security as you get older — as the mover of a successful amendment in this Court on 15th December 1987 I looked forward, as promised in this document, to the Department of Health and Social Security review conclusions before the end of the year. Because of the cost of living on the Island there is a need for serious consideration of raising the level at which supplementary pension may be paid and, whilst saying that, I accept that there will be another cut-off point and further problems may follow. I again suggest that one of the best things this Government has introduced is the cold weather payments, and nothing would be more socially responsible in my view than an extension in the period of time or eligible groups or amount to be paid allied to an effective insulation programme, as indicated yesterday by the hon. member for North Douglas, Mrs. Delaney. One final theme when we are talking about elderly people — there was a comment yesterday, a suggestion yesterday, that we could seek advice from the United Kingdom on the efficiency of the health service, and my answer to that is a categoric `no, thank you'. I think we can teach the United Kingdom a thing about how to run a health service! The final aspect I would like to mention is the right for all to have a share. It

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T137

is good to see that average wage levels have increased, but I would suggest that this is mostly due to the financial sector and the manufacturing, and we need to assist other sectors, including those in Government employ, before discontent sets in. That will not be achieved by members of this Court accepting that it is okay to pay low wages as pin money to supplement the breadwinner, as was suggested yesterday. There are a number of areas where high productivity is impossible to assess, so that should not also be the primary base for uplifting wage levels. Your Excellency, I support that greater priority be given to the Public Health Bill and I hope that the Minister for Local Government is successful in that. I support the long overdue concept of revitalising town centres for housing purposes, and also I would like to see, rather than just a rebate scheme as outlined on page 50 of the report, a rent and rate rebate scheme as I have many people having difficulty in private accommodation. Finally, Your Excellency, I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for North Douglas, Mrs. Delaney, over problems associated with moneylenders and, on a lighter note, she mentioned about problems with door-to-door canvassing and harassment which I accept and perhaps we can do something about before the next election. (Interruption and laughter)

Mr. Irving: Your Excellency, I want to speak on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Cain. This policy review gives one many subjects on which one could talk for hours, but I think most things have already been said in this debate which are really worth saying except for the question of Mr. Cain's amendment. The policy objective on page 1 here talks about the Government's central policy objective of the management of the economy. Now, I would like to begin by saying that I cannot agree for one moment that we reject this report out of hand and throw it away, as is proposed by the hon. member in the first sentence of his amendment. I believe we do concur with the strategy and proposals put forward as far as they go. As the hon. member for Onchan has said, he believes that Mr. Cain considers that we do not go far enough and that this is merely a document showing a policy review for the individual departments of Government. Of course it is. If I may use the terms 'micro-economics' and 'macro-economics' I would say that this is micro- economics, it is a micro-economic review of the work and the policies of the individual departments of Government. Now I know the hon. member, Mr. Cain, will say it does not include any strategy here. It does include strategy. One has only to look through to see the frequent use in its right term of the word 'strategy' and the policy of the departments and so on, but if we consider in terms of micro and macro-economics, these are micro-economic reviews of sections of the economy. Now, a study of the economy as a whole is known as macro-economics and I would suggest, Your Excellency, that what the hon. member for Douglas is really trying to achieve is to get a macro-economics study of the economy of the Isle of Man as a whole and not just the individual departments separately, and I believe this is fair enough. Executive Council have appointed a new Economic Committee. Now unless the new committee produces a study of the economy as a whole, they will be the only, I believe, national economic body in this world who does not do that, so that I find nothing objectionable about the second part of the hon. member's amendment; I believe we should support it. It is certainly a harmless statement but

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T138 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 it is a statement to give encouragement to the members of the new Economic Committee to get on with this job. Now I must say too that I do not believe that this sort of comprehensive — I think he calls it — cohesive plan can be produced by the 31st March 1989 and therefore I am objecting to the insertion of that date too. But I do believe that the hon. member is perfectly right when he says there must be an economic plan for the economy as a whole and I would support him entirely but, Your Excellency, I would like to amend his amendment by deleting the first sentence, which is, to delete the words 'concurs with the strategy and proposals contained therein'. In a general way I certainly concur with the strategy and the proposals but I want to go further. But I hope hon. members will not accept the amendment throwing out the policy review as a whole. Now, as for the rest of his amendment I would like to add the word 'and' — it is a consequential amendment — before the second part and, mainly in the second part, I move to delete the words, 'by the 31st March 1989'. But I do commend to hon. members the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for West Douglas that there be a comprehensive plan for the management of the economy as a whole.

The Governor: Hon. member, as all the pundits will tell you around the Court, you can not amend an amendment and therefore you must propose a new one. There is plenty of time for you to do so, and I think the Court would be quite happy if you circulated in writing your new proposal and we can take it as a Court that it has been proposed and therefore, once we see it, unless anyone has completely mastered it, the seconding can wait until that moment. I call upon the hon. member for Michael.

Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, we have heard varied opinions expressed and I do think there is a consensus in support of the document that you have, which is both a review of the past year and it gives hope and expectation for the coming year. Yes, there is good news and I do not think that we should be ashamed to say it out loud. Unemployment has dropped from in excess of 2,000 two years ago to 817 now, wages and salaries are rising and there is a general prosperity within the Island, and these are things that are perceived by everybody outside within the community. But of course, and unfortunately, there is a down side, and Executive Council and the Chief Minister are well aware that these need rectification. We have still 385 people in receipt of family income supplement, and that is 385 too many. But let us get it into proportion before we hear people shouting from the roof tops. That is just over one per cent. of the working population and compare that with the United Kingdom and I am happy to tell the hon. lady for Peel that is much, much better than the United Kingdom and we must ensure that we have none on family income supplement. There are unfortunately 1,952 persons on supplementary pension and, yes, there may be need to further help and assistance and yes, as members said, housing is a problem and we must be ever vigilant. But credit where credit is due, and the hon. minister is not here today at this moment to take this credit. He and his department have probably worked harder than any previous minister in that department to get housing on the move and every effort is being made. Now houses cannot, as has been said, be produced overnight but they are being produced.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T139

Mr. Kermode: We never had the money before.

Mr. Cannan: The problems can and will be overcome. Yes, this is part of our prosperity and it is being spread throughout the economy, but to do so, to overcome our problems — and I have said this time and again — we must continue to have a strong economy to pay for the caring. Now, members will have read, and it has been referred to on the first page of the review, that the fulfilment of our ambition of the prosperous and caring society can only be achieved by ensuring 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, and I want to take this opportunity to assure members that the Treasury is managing the economy and we are cognisant of what is being said. I have listened both to the member for West Douglas and to the hon. member of Council, Mr. Irving. The Treasury does have a policy, sir, to ensure sustained growth, in order to reduce further the level of unemployment, to create - (Interruption) Thank you. To create a soundly based economic infrastructure that will provide the increasing finance to pay for the continuing rising standards required and expected from health, education and the other services provided, to fulfil the Manx people's expectations of a higher standard of living and a higher wage economy, to maintain the initiative and remain competitive in an increasingly competitive world market, keeping a balanced economy — and this is important, because so often I hear, again, that the Government is interested only in the finance sector. It is not; it is interested in a diversified economy as between all sectors of the wealth-creating sector of the community. All sectors — we give as much care and attention to agriculture, to industry and perhaps tourism as we do to the finance sector. They are all important and it is part of that package of diversification which is essential. Finally, the Treasury is exercising firm control and management of Government expenditure and create a steady build up of reserved funds, but we have a problem in creating, exercising firm control over expenditure when periodically Tynwald runs off at a tangent and votes sums for certain matters which are possibly not properly thought out and are not within any conceived plan, but they come forward as a supplementary ideas, as supplementary resolutions, and members vote on it and, of course, the money is then provided. Yes, the economy does need a certain amount of planning but you can have too much planning, and too much planning can restrict the entrepreneurial drive of those people in certain sectors of the economy who are manning the engine room, so to speak, and the dynamism which is for all of us to see outside. Now, I would not wish over-direction of the economy or over direction to inhibit the people in the private sector from getting on with the job which is to providing jobs, providing a prosperous business and, from that prosperous business, to corporate tax. We then have the funds to do those things which we in this Government are anxious to do. Now at this point, Your Excellency, I would like to turn to the European Community and to the harmonisation of tariffs in 1992. I think there needs to be just a little bit of clarification that whilst the Isle of Man has internal self-Government it is laid down by constitution that matters of foreign affairs and defence are the

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T140 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, and that means that negotiations with the European Community can only be conducted through the agency of the United Kingdom Government. We do not have the constitutional power to go there direct, and the provisions — and this is most important of all — the provisions of the Treaty of Rome which apply to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are governed by Articles 25 to 27, Protocol 3, of the Treaty of Accession. Therefore provisions for achieving the completion of the internal market will apply to the Isle of Man only within this framework. Those are not my words, sir, those are the authoritive statement of Her Majesty's Government. So in brief, the Island's relationship with Europe is that of the special relationship with the community safeguarded by Protocol 3 of the United Kingdom's Treaty of Accession, and in terms of harmonisation or approximation of indirect taxes neither the Treaty of Accession nor Protocol 3 is, as we are advised presently by the United Kingdom Government, for renegotiation, and what we are concerned about is the regulations of harmonisation that the Manx Government safeguard and ensure that these regulations do not adversely affect the economy and, in particular, the finance industry. I say 'in particular the finance industry' because Protocol 3 gives the Isle of Man unrestricted access of manufactured goods into Europe and it does not do so in respect of financial services and products. It does not also restrict us in terms of the common agricultural policy. Now Treasury is of the opinion that if we can obtain designated country status in terms of the United Kingdom's Financial Services Act this will assist — and I say 'assist' — in enabling us to go into Europe, but there is a lot of work to be done, there is a lot of care to be taken in ensuring that there is nothing adverse to the Isle of Man's economy in what may come from 1992, but all members are aware that if the goalposts are moving and are seen to be moving and Mrs. Thatcher's policy is not yet clear, it is the policy of the United Kingdom that will reflect on what we are able or unable to do in the Isle of Man. Now that, I think, is very, very important and we are very conscious of it and we will give it our full and careful consideration at all times. There is one other matter that I will speak to before I sit down, and that is a personal one and I speak personally. I want to see constitutional advancement in terms of the 1981 resolution of Tynwald. I have made certain proposals to the Consitutional Committee of Executive Council. I support the questions the Speaker of the House of Keys was making yesterday about the post of Chief Secretary being separated. I believe and I know from my time in the old colonies that Government Secretaries that were responsible both for the local legislature and the governor of the colony of the dependency were a colonial anachronism and that, as colonies and people progressed to greater internal self-government it was necessary to have a Chief Secretary identified solely with the Executive of the internal government of that country. I will not go into this in any further detail; they are personal views which I will try and exercise some influence in promoting the Isle of Man's greater self-government. Finally, before I sit down and in conclusion, let me say in my official capacity the the Island's economy is steadily strengthening and that the Treasury will do all in its power to maintain this strength. Only the misguided, I believe, want to see a return to the years of decline and decay and I am certain that is not the wish of the majority. My message to this Court, sir, and indeed to the people of the Isle of Man, is that we go forward together with confidence in the future under

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T141

the positive leadership of the Chief Minister. I would ask you to support the policy document, confident, as I said, in positive Government into the coming year.

Mr. Luft: Your Excellency, I too would wish to congratulate the Chief Minister and the members of the Executive Council on the document they have produced, which demonstrates that a great deal of thought and work has gone into its preparation and it does portray a vision for us to look forward to in the future. Certainly, Your Excellency, it has achieved its object of stimulating debate as it is stated, and the hon. member for West Douglas has proposed an amendment asking that a cohesive policy document which sets out the means, whereby the central policy objective has detail may be prepared, and I do not agree, Your Excellency, with this amendment.

Mr. Irving: You agree with mine though, do you not?

Mr. Luft: I do not agree even with my hon. learned colleague on the Council. (Laughter) Page 1 does not, in fact, in this document, detail, as it is suggested in the amendment, the objective of the Government. It states the board sweep of the principle and there are certain details, certainly, in the following 80 pages, but it might be extremely limiting for the Executive Council to produce the document which is suggested. I think it depends upon every department, every member of this Court, Your Excellency, to devise the means whereby to achieve these objectives, and I would not like to think it should be limited in a document prepared between now and March as to what might be thought out in a few meetings, and I prefer to leave the matter completely general. It would be difficult, too, to achieve this cohesive policy document. I think the honourable and gallant member for Ramsey has indicated, in his very clear speech, some of those difficulties. Rather than deal with the whole of the broad sweep of the policy 1988, I wish to confine and limit my speech, the hon. members will be glad to hear, Your Excellency, to just certain aspects, because we have had an excellent debate covering most of the general topics. First of all the question of town and country planning. The hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, is extremely critical of the planning procedure. Now although I am, I confess, a member of the Local Government and Environment Department, I have never taken part in a planning enquiry on an application, so I feel that I have a certain independence, Your Excellency, by looking on the sidelines at our new planning procedures. First of all it has been suggested that planning should have a local element, that the local authorities should be the persons to determine the plans for the properties and development in their neighbourhood. I feel this would be a most retrograde step and one to be deplored. In England we have an example of what happens when you have local planning authorities, because it may well be that a particular council is very anxious to increase its rate fund and therefore will give approval to building which, from a general community point of view, should never have been approved. We, fortunately in the Isle of Man, have never had the local authority responsible for planning; starting with an Island Development Board that has now of course, devolved on the Department of Local Government and Environment, and this has been a very good thing for the Island. Planning of the land is a matter which concerns the national interest, Your

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T142 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

Excellency. Under the old system, when I was in practice, there used to be an adversarial contest between the developer and the objectors; advocate or advocates appeared on each side and fought the matter out, and it might well be that decisions were determined upon who scored the most points. What a deplorable feature for planning for the Isle of Man! Then the ultimate appeal tribunal in those days was made up of a chairman from this Court and a number of people appointed and, to be frank, they were amateurs, Your Excellency, they knew little about planning and even less about the public policy, perhaps, which should be pursued for the Isle of Man. The lay element were in that category and hence we have the blots on the landscape today which should never have happened and which we should have avoided had we had a sensible planning policy. Obviously Tynwald should have the ultimate say in planning and that would produce what is an ideal state of affairs. Under the present system I think we have achieved this. Now we have an inspector, who is an expert, Your Excellency, who considers the appeal and makes his report, and then the minister of the department, as the representative of Tynwald — and, after all, if you do not like what he does he can be removed — determines the final question — is the approval to be granted or is it not? Now the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, is, I believe, a gentleman of integrity who honestly believes the truth of what he says, but he is misguided in this in his opinions on planning. He says that he does not allege corruption, but he vaguely suggests that something must be amiss, because he believes the developer who is rich and powerful will get his commission whereas poor Mr. Cannan, Mr. Quayle, Mr. Teare or Mr. Corrin cannot get anywhere. Now this, of course, is nonsense, Your Excellency, and has never been so. It might well be that incidentally, as part of the scene, the rich developer has an advantage because he is able to afford advice, he is told what land is available for planning, he is planning a large area for development, he knows what to do and he is properly advised as to where the zoning would permit his residential development, and in that extent I suppose he has an advantage, because the poor Mr. Manx will come along and say 'I want to build a house in the corner of my father's field because he has given it to me' and of course that might be a plot which would destroy the scenic value of the surroundings, and that is the type of thing that happens. It might be an outrage to grant the planning permission for some of the Mr. Manx's applications. The appeal system which we now have, Your Excellency, is the best we have ever had and it does work. The Minister of Local Government and the Environment — we have heard yesterday about titles; I think he might better be christened, perhaps, the Minister of Local Government and the Environment, Dominic Dynamo Delaney because he has this tremendous energy and he inspires his department to get through the enormous volume of work now coming before every aspect of local government, and the staff, as I think he has mentioned, are doing, under the difficulties of not being able to recruit sufficient, a marvellous job. That brings me to another point where I feel Mr Corrin, hon. member for Rushen, is not quite au fait with the position. Planning is planning, and that deals with the design of the property, what it is going to look like, its colours and so on, its size and where it is situated. Now he has suggested, the hon. member, that if there is not sufficient enforcement of planning, in 20 years' time the buildings will collapse. Well, that again is not true; if the byelaw enforcement is not carried out then the building may well collapse through lack of foundations and so on, but the building

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T143 is not going to collapse because it has three windows instead of two or something, and I think that is a misapprehension. After all, on the compliance with the building of the plans, we have the byelaw inspections, we have the enforcement officers for that, and we have of course the owner who will ensure, surely, through his architect, his clerk of works, that the building does comply with the plans. The only other subject, Your Excellency, on which I wish to comment is in reference to the prison system. I am very concerned from what we learned yesterday that detention will not be available now for boys under 14 and girls under 17. There are unruly children under these ages and some of them, in my experience, do require a sentence of detention. Only in the absolutely extreme case is a court at the moment, under the present legislation, entitled to send a young person to prison; it is a very extreme case indeed and the court would be most reluctant to do so, but if there were a detention centre then of course the magistrates and other courts would readily send the child to that detention centre, and I would like the Home Affairs Department and the hon. minister to reconsider this question of detention as to whether they have a sufficient feel there to deal with these unruly cases. The magistrates that I have spoken to have a concern in the matter. The other point on the prisons, Your Excellency, is that we are now going to have a system whereby all prisoners will be retained in the Isle of Man. This has a great deal of merit because in the past our prisoners, our delinquents, have gone away and they have learnt tricks of the trade they never knew, and they have come back more confirmed than ever in their evil ways, and this present proposal will get rid of that unfortunate circumstance. That was particularly noticeable with young people in borstal and so on because we had the most horrible people in the other country in borstals which our young people mixed with. But if we are going to retain, for example, adult prisoners in the prison for long sentences, we must ensure they have some facilities to occupy their time and I have not yet heard whether we have this. May I very briefly, Your Excellency, relate an instance of a man who was sentenced? It was not a violent crime but it was a serious crime and he received 12 months. He was a very able man, intelligent and able to use his hands and he suggested, when he saw the garden, that they really needed a wheelbarrow to help them in their work and he said 'I will make you a wheelbarrow if you will supply the materials' and in due course there was delivered to him a Downwards mineral water box, out of which to make the wheelbarrow. Now he might have made the wheelbarrow, Your Excellency, out of that material because the nails were supplied, but when he examined it it was full of woodworm and he was never able to make his wheelbarrow. Now I do hope that facilities will be available to occupy these men and women, because in England the most extensive facilities, of course, are available. We have gone beyond the old mail bags and the making of brushes, although I have seen that carried on in some of the prisons that I have visited in England. I hope that we may have for these unfortunate people who have erred and strayed some proper provision for work, and I trust that with the help of the views in this document the Isle of Man may still go forth, Your Excellency, to prosperity and to a caring society.

The Governor: Well, hon. members, I propose we adjourn now until 2.40 p.m. The first to speak after that break will be Mr Gelling.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T144 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

The Court adjourned at 1.08 p.m.

GOVERNMENT POLICY REVIEW — DEBATE CONTINUED

The Governor: The hon. member for Malew and Santon.

Mr. Gelling: Your Excellency, I rise obviously in support of the policy review moved by the Chief Minister and also to thank the Chairman of the Consumer Council for her support to the agricultural industry. I can assure her that my department look at the farming industry from farmer to the butcher's shop and from farmer to the vegetable stall. We as a department never miss the opportunity to remind the industry that we require production of what the consumer wants and not to tell the consumer what they should have. May I also assure this Court that, to prevent speculative use of the Agricultural Holdings Loan Scheme, if a borrower sells his land or farm within five years of payment of the Government loan the Treasury has the discretionary power to charge a higher rate of interest retrospectively to the date of payment of that loan. It has never been necessary, Your Excellency, to implement this provision but if it was to be applied, then commercial rates of interest would be charged. A borrower also has to seek Treasury consent to sell part of the land which is subject of a Government loan and such consent is usually only given subject to the sale proceeds being paid to Government to reduce that outstanding loan. The hon. Chairman of the Consumer Council also stated her concern about the beef cow herd and I can assure her that my department are also very concerned. We are concerned because the beef cow herd has halved in the past 14 years. We are concerned also because 75 per cent. of calves for beef fattening emanate from the dairy herd and we all know that they do not produce a good beef carcass. We are taking steps to encourage farmers back to the beef suckler herds so as to restore the very fine balance which is so very important in our Manx agricultural industry. We too are concerned that calves and store cattle are being shipped and are not being offered for slaughter at our Island abattoir. This my department is also addressing. I can inform members that it is mainly dairy breed calves that are being exported due to the low market price. Beef breed calves are mainly purchased by local farmers at, in some cases, alarmingly high prices. The high prices are due to the demand for beef breed animals, hopefully to bring about the balance that we require. Whether we like it or not, many pressures are forced on us by what happens in the U.K. The milk quota in the United Kingdom has created a demand for calves and made it viable for U.K. buyers to outbid the Manx farmer at the mart. Again I emphasise, my department are not too concerned at dairy calves leaving the Island as they do cause problems when the steers, and in some cases the heifers, end up being offered for beef; they very rarely qualify for premium as their carcasses do not lend themselves to the confirmation demanded. The hon. Chairman of the Consumer Council made a statement that the sheep are okay. Now from the point of view of breeding we would agree that the sheep men have got their act together and they produce a good animal with approximately an eight per cent rejection for premium, but of course that is exactly what they

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T145 are breeding, is an animal to end up on the consumer's plate. But in the beef industry you have this milk where people are breeding an animal obviously to give milk but they too have calves, 50 per cent. of them are steers, and this obviously ends up in the beef line. But when I come back to sheep, the Speaker this morning said about the difficulties we have with our exports. Now restrictions are in force which are designed to prevent the disease of Maedi-visna coming to the Island with imported sheep. There has been continuing dialogue with the Ministry of Agriculture in the U.K. to persuade them of our Maedi-visna status. There will be more meaningful negotiations with them next month and we are very hopeful that a successful outcome will shortly be achieved. We do not underestimate the task ahead for Government and my department as our fishermen face a situation of very little catch and, if they do succeed, there is a poor market at a reduced price. This is putting the fishing industry in an impossible situation, causing us great concern. In fact it could be stated that half the fishing fleet is up for sale, and I do urge members to support our traditional industries of farming and fishing at a time when we have the ability to do so. I know that many fishermen have moved on to the booming building scene, some taking up skills they learned prior to moving into the fishing industry. This is good. But will the fishing industry be there for them to return to when the building industry is restored to normal? When we get our 12-mile or median line will we have a fishing fleet to fish that area? As I have stated, many pressures and actions are forced upon us directly or indirectly by actions in the U.K. and Europe. We have got to face up to those situations and I can assure this hon. Court that my department will be facing up to those situations and looking for the solutions to establish confidence and viability back to the basic industries of farming and fishing. Planning, Your Excellency, has had a very good airing during this debate and I therefore do not wish to speak at length on planning, as the Minister of the Local Government and the Environment, the Chairman of the Planning Committee and its members know my thoughts on planning on this Island as I have made my thoughts known to them often enough over the past two years. However, a working party and a comprehensive policy for the countryside. This working party has been formed, Your Excellency, and I would hope that during its deliberations it will cover such things as building in the countryside, transport, areas that should be left totally unspoilt and so on. I have accepted the chairmanship of this working party and the fellow members are members of this Court, namely, the member for Castletown, Mr. Brown, the member for Ayre, Mr. Quine, the member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, and the member for Onchan, Mr. Leventhorpe. I would hope, Your Excellency, that this working party will report back to Executive having considered many of the things that we have heard during this Court's sitting on areas of 'purple' land, where we should or should not allow houses, houses in the countryside that are habitable or not habitable to be tastefully restored, and I do believe the planners have got a very difficult job because they are working on a draft development guide of 1982 with no real Government policy as to whether or not these things should happen. I have always felt, and the planners know my feelings, that the countryside is an area where people live and people work; it is not just a painted landscape to

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T146 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 be admired, and I think everyone accepts that. But we have got to be very careful that it is done in the correct manner, and I feel sure that only good can come out of this working party which is to look into a comprehensive policy for our countryside to ensure a pleasant and attractive environment in which our Manx residents can live and work for the continuing prosperity of our Island.

The Governor: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? Mr. Karran, the member for Onchan, followed by Mr. Kermode.

Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, I was not going to speak and I still intend to be short. Even after listening to some of the hon. members, ministers in particular I should say, with their orgy of self-praise and what they have done and what has happened, I feel that it would be wrong just to attack for the sake of it. I think everybody in this hon. Court has his own hobbyhorses and, equally, in my short time in this hon. Court, it is easy to join the knockers — 'This is wrong, that is wrong' — and I will not agree with that because it is not popular. But I refused to join the band wagonists, even though the sad fact is that many of the people who are doing this very thing today in this hon. Court have taken lessons from the past actions of some of the hon. ministers now. What really is missing in this review in my opinion is the role of ministerial government. We all appreciate the Chief Minister and the difficulties of the short time trying to get this new type of Government going, but I believe that he must start to have a larger control, not just being a catalyst in his Council of Ministers. I believe, hon. members, that before you can get good policies you need good government making the right decisions for the right reasons. I give an example of this in item 34 where we see the minister like a child is asking for his ball back, not who is best suited for the job but it is not part of our team now. We can forget any grand policies in this hon. Court if we do not get the basis right, in my opinion. If you in Executive Government cannot have a united front you certainly will not get a united front in this hon. Court. I think other fundamental things that I think need to be pointed out are not as grand as the population control and other things which I believe are important, but little things which will help it become easier for the ministerial government to get the backing of this hon. Court: stop us having, as hon. members, to ask the media to find out what is going on, control the ego trips of some hon. members within your Council of Ministers, and you may find that you may have a lot more support in this hon. House than you realise. You hear of ministers running around stabbing each other in the back. What chance have you got for a policy document to get fulfilled if you cannot amongst yourselves control yourselves from doing this very thing? And a classic example in my opinion, whether you support the issue or not, is the Bounty affair. If you cannot get the order and self-discipline within your own council you will not get it in this hon. Court. Respect is an important thing. If you allow some ministers to act at best as the Two Ronnies when hon. members in this House ask legitimate and reasonable questions and at worst as a verbal hit man trying to mislead and misquote members with honest intent, do not expect the middle ground which this Government depends on in this hon. Court to support your policies, because the great sadness when this

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T147 happens is one by one those policies will fly out of the window because you will not have the ground and the support of this hon. Court to do the very things you are wanting to do. Your Excellency, I know I will be criticised for what I have said and I am big enough to take what I have to say. But I make no apologies for saying this, because I could go off on grand schemes, and I am one of the members that is often laughed about and then six months later somebody decides that maybe he is not off his rocker after all.

Mr. Duggan: Even Mr. Cain said that.

Mr. Karran: The thing is that I would like to see a commitment by the Chief Minister to making sure that he gets the basis right of this ministerial government and as the only member in this hon. Court that voted against ministerial government I recognise if it is run right it can be of benefit to the Island. Stop some of your ministers asking like toy town ministers because do not expect it not to rub off on the rest of you, and that will affect your ability to get your policies through this hon. Court. I would like to finally say to this hon. Court, the Council of Ministers, you have my support; it is too easy to knock. I have heard other members going on about this and that. There are things that I could say about the Review Policy but I think it would serve no practical point. Start working together, start making ministerial government work properly, start making your members of your hon. council work as a united team and you may find that you will get a united Court behind you apart from the odd maverick. You need our support, we want to support you, and I believe that if you can sort out the basis of your position as far as the role of ministerial government is concerned we can work together for a better future for the people of the Isle of Man. But if we do not get down to the fundamentals and start oiling the machinery of government, I am afraid that this hon. Court will find that the policies, however small or however grand, will take three times or if never to be succeeded with, if the situation of petty rivalries becomes more important than the situation of where Government has the proper control over it. So let us hope that we can see in the year to come not just a matter of getting on with the caring and prosperous society, but let us see our ministerial government start really working as a ministerial government, get away from the personalities, the ego trips, and the empire building of some within your own council, and I believe that we can make a good tomorrow.

The Governor: Before calling on the next hon. person to speak, may I just observe, which I do from time to time, rather schoolmasterly, that it is the duty of hon. members to address the Chair and, however strongly you might feel, not to address an individual member of the Court. I call on the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr. Kermode, followed by Dr. Orme, followed by Mr. Gilbey, followed by Mr. Duggan.

Mr. Kermode: I am glad you said that before I spoke, Your Excellency, I am on the right track now. I wondered why Dr. Orme asked was I going to speak. As

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T148 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 soon as I said I was going to speak he seemed to want to speak after; there must be a reason for that but I will not mention it now on this occasion, as my colleague over there has done, Your Excellency, because I think at a later debate we will get all the nitty-gritty that comes along. I want to go along with the theme of the last member, because I can concur with everything that most members have said and in particular the one that impressed me most was the member for Douglas South, Mr. Cretney, because as a socialist he put his finger on the button as far as I was concerned. In fact the very amendment he was talking about stemmed from a resolution that I had in this hon. Court in the first place, so I can go along with what he was saying. But as far as the document is concerned, it is one particular paragraph when you talk about the ministerial government, which I totally support and which I want to work because, if it does not work, we are going to be in one mess, this Government, as far as the Isle of Man is concerned; Mr. Speaker pointed that out once before in debate, it has to work. And the particular paragraph I want to say is, 'Membership of Departments will vary from time to time to take account of the wishes of Members of Tynwald and their individual skills and experience', not 'or experience' but 'and experience', and I sometimes wonder what direction or what role the Chief Minister wishes us the non-members of Executive Council, to take in this Government. I have heard my minister outline plans of our department today regarding the Queen's Pier which I do not even know about but he has told this hon. Court, and I am only the minister that he has given responsibility for harbours. But when you talk about individual skills, let us look at Executive Council and individual skills. The Minister for the D.H.P.P., he is an electrician.

Mr. Brown: I was poor, though! (Laughter)

Mr. Delaney: You are wired for sound, Tony! (Laughter)

Mr. Kermode: The D.H.S.S., sorry, he was an electrician. The Minister for D.H.P.P. was a shop manager; director he may have been, I do not know, but a shop manager.

Mr. Delaney: Are you being served?

Mr. Catlin: That is not true. I would recognise Phil if he was a little less offensive, you know, quite candidly.

Mr. Kermode: Nevertheless, the department you are running, you have never had the skills in the department you are running. The Minister for Tourism — as far as I am aware he was a barman. (Laughter)

Mr. Delaney: I will drink to that! (Laughter)

Mr. Bell: At least we all worked. (Laughter)

Mr. Kermode: We have the Minister for Education, he was an insurance man. The Minister for Agriculture — he was involved with selling cars and tractors.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T149

A Member: Well that is farming.

Mr. Kermode: He was not involved with the job he is doing. But if you look at members outside of Executive Council, when you look at Mr. Leventhorpe; Mr. Cretney, an ex-schoolteacher; Mr. Butler who knows more about communications than any other member of this hon. Court; an ex-Hong Kong police officer —

Mr. Delaney: Talpan!

Mr. Kermode: — there is more expertise outside of Executive Council than what . there is in it. So I think, will you stop patting yourselves on the back and realise that even what you people are trying to achieve, you cannot achieve without us, ' because most of what you do achieve come from the questions from us on the Floor in the first place because we set the ball rolling.

Mrs. Hannan: Absolutely.

_ Mr. Kermode: And within my own department it has been mentioned today, Your Excellency, my colleague who has been in the department a short time has suddenly become an expert in sewage and I am glad about that because it is a situation very close to my heart. (Laughter)

Mr. Delaney: You are going round the bend, Phil! (Laughter)

Mr. Kermode: But one of the things that we talked about, Your Excellency, was actually having a policy, and it is a very serious matter; we are having a laugh and joke here but it is a very serious matter of how we are going to dispose of sewage in the Isle of Man. Now I have continuously within my department and at a meeting only the other week I asked, we need to find a policy, a policy of the way to dispose of sewage in the Isle of Man, and until we do that we cannot get the infrastructure right as far as sewage is concerned. But I am pleased to say we are now, with different meetings that we have had, going down that avenue, and when we see our estimates you will see that we are trying to alleviate that very problem. As my minister has already mentioned and we go on to parking, there is a report that I was commissioned to do by my minister on behalf of Executive Council that parking in Douglas be looked at. That report is finished. There are some things in there that members will not agree with, will be distasteful to you because you have had them here before and you threw them out, but it is constructive, there are reasonable recommendations, and I hope that my minister will get it to Executive Council and get it to this hon. Court in the hope that we can get the finance to implement some of those recommendations herein, because that is also a very important area. Your Excellency, I do not know whether the hon. member for the Legislative Council, Mr. Barton, has been moved up a peg but he has been handing out 'Hon'. to Mr. Cain when he was speaking and I just wondered whether Mr. Cain has been made an 'Hon.' since we last met. (Laughter)

Mr. Delaney: He won the raffle! (Laughter)

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T150 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

Mr. Kermode: And if I may just put my colleague in East Douglas right, when he talks about the Chester Street car park, it was not the D.H.P.P. that instigated that, but that was a recommendation of Executive Council that came to us because they had made the deal for the Chester Street car park development before we even got involved in it, they had made the deal with that particular company which was building the then Heritage Centre —

Mr. Delaney: It is Executive Council.

Mr. Kermode: — so you cannot put that on our shoulders. All right, it was a Government directive before we came into that. So that is the correct way. 1..

Mr. Delaney: So who was acting honourably by carrying out Government's agreements?

Mr. Kermode: Very good. (Laughter) Your Excellency, I will say no more, but I do hope the Chief Minister, when he gives his reply, will point us in the direction in order to allow Executive Council and this Government to get on with the ministerial system so that we know where we are going and then we can all work together for the benefit of the people of the Isle of Man, because, if he does not, we will end up with a few more Mr. Quines and a few more Mr. Cains and the ministers will be left to run it on their own while we sit outside firing the bullets and probably before the next election they will be wanting to resign as well.

Mr. Delaney: As a matter of personal explanation, Your Excellency, under Standing Orders, just to make sure in the Court I was not missed out, I was a steeplejack by profession but I feel, sir, I was safer up there 800 ft on Guy's Hospital chimney. (Laughter)

Mr. Kermode: Was that a correct point of order, Your Excellency, because I never mentioned the member?

Mr. Delaney: No, but I wanted to make sure everyone was covered. (Laughter) ' And give us a pint, by the way, Miles, will you!

The Governor: I call on the hon. member for Rushen, Dr. Orme.

Dr. Orme: Your Excellency, I must remember in future not to speak after the previous speaker. (Laughter) Light relief is very good for one's state of mind but very bad for one's concentration. Your Excellency —

Mr. Kermode: We will not be able to understand you anyway. (Laughter)

Dr. Orme: Well I will try harder. (Laughter) Your Excellency, when I first received this document I found it a very hard document to respond to because it was obviously very, very well intentioned and an important collection of information on which to base management decisions, and I felt that I welcomed the document but I was more struck by its shortcomings than by its contents, and having sat and listened

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 TI 51

to a number of contributions in the debate yesterday and today, I am less than clear 4. about the intention of this procedure. I am not familiar with the procedure that it replaced but I gather it was a rather vituperative procedure whereby everyone criticised everyone else's section of the relative importance in the Budget and in the provision of finance and in importance in Executive Council's considerations, 4. and we all end up with a sort of collection of perhaps the worst rather more than the best hopes of everyone. Now I am not sure what the procedure in which we are involved today is intended to achieve. We have had so far, broadly speaking, descriptions of present and future actions for ministers, and they are valuable; they explain to us where they see their section of responsibility developing. We have wide-ranging comments on policy and 'constituency issues. We have had tribal rumblings and we have had discussions on wheelbarrows. But I am note sure where all of this is taking us in terms of developing our collective understanding of the problems that face us. Criticisms of departments, management decisions for this year do not seem to me to be contributing towards what I see surely must be the purpose of this debate and that is to discuss how the .actions of a number of different areas of Government activities may be co-ordinated so that they together represent a coherent means of achieving policy aims. Now, surely it is the gathering together of all these separate parcels of activity within 'Government which is so important to the function of this House as against anywhere else. It is, after all, where Executive Council step out of their arena and ask for the support of this Court. Now it would be easy for me to step forward with an ambitious plan for tourism, a little bit of criticism of a few of the departments and sit down again having made my contribution. But in studying the roles of the various members of this Court :surely we ought to all be aiming towards the same aim, which is a co-ordinated plan of action to deal with the problems of today and the future as we see them. Now, in that, in the pursuit of that end, I see the primary purpose for Executive Council's existence. After all, we would not need to have an Executive Council; each department could function on its own and come to this House and fight for its corner and we would all take the best of what we saw and proceed in a sort of 'rather disorderly fashion, and I gather that is roughly how perhaps it used to be. Now Executive Council I look to to take the plans of those departments and put them together into a coherent form. Now it is a function, which, if they do not perform it, it is not going to get done and we are going to be left in this House, r the non-Executive Council members are going to be left in this Court, in my view, wandering, we are going to be uncertain of the principles which we are seeking to support and those which we have decided to be less important and we are going to be lacking leadership. Now I would like to quote as a classic example the debate yesterday which centred around the planning of a housing policy. I cannot imagine a more 1 unsatisfactory situation than to be in the situation in which the minister of that department finds himself at the moment, where he has a major problem which I think even his most unkind critic would not claim to be of his own making, and yet he is precluded, it appears, from finding the very means to solving that problem within his own department: he cannot get staff. Now, surely that is a matter which is precisely the sort of co-ordinating function that Executive Council should be carrying out. It should not be possible for that

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T152 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 sort of obstacle to the obvious problems that are facing this Court to take place, and yet it seems that they are there and that is what I am wrestling with in trying to understand and have any confidence in this document which is before me today. I see mostly a compendium of department policies and I do not see what component Executive Council has added to those policies. I see only, at the moment, a club that meets on Thursday mornings and they like each others policies, and I do not see how the document steps beyond an attempt to co-ordinate activities at one point in time and in only our present circumstances. It is a static document, it talks at the most about one year ahead or thereabouts, and the problems that face us are essentially dynamic — time and change are inevitable — and it is the component of response to these factors that is missing to me: a vision for the future. There is no vision at all in this document. Correctly, really, there is a vision but it is a sort of vague vision. The vision is 'It will sort of be like now but a little bit better', and really that cannot be claimed to be sufficient to meet the problems that we know are going to face us in the next five to ten years. We know we are going to have to face an environment that surrounds us and influences us in a major way which is going to undergo major change. Now how are we to respond? I am most concerned that in the absence of a lead from Executive Council in this respect we are going to become quarrelsome men. It is my experience that men who are not given leadership are more likely to quarrel and I regard the main problem that I see from this document is a leadership problem. The document, to me, is the sort of document that would be circulated in a large organisation, a large commercial organisation, at middle management level. It would be circulated to inform other managers of sections what certain managers of sections were doing; it is a compendium for the exchange of information. But we need more than that, we must expect more than that from Executive Council and a Chief Minister. I think that the problem highlights one which I have had some experience of in my own department, one of slippage in functions throughout the Government and the Civil Service combination that makes up the mechanism of our Government, (Mr. Kermode: Hear, hear.) one whereby it seems to me that we have ministers who are either forced by circumstance or desire to take part in the day-to-day running of their departments and that means that they do not give thought to the future problems, to policy problems, to a whole area of activity which is essentially a top management activity, which is what they are, and it is that desire or the circumstance that concerns me most, that forces politicians to be doing chief executive officer level jobs, and I am very, very concerned, having read this document, that we have a number of politicians who are doing probably a very good job as a chief executive officer of their department, but that is not their job. Their job is to come to this House with a vision of how we develop policy for the Isle of Man, how we meet the future. The need for this is so desperate; the recent history of the Isle of Man shows that in aggregate the Isle of Man has spent more time in poverty, recession and economic difficulty than it has in growth and economic development. It has lacked the ability to deal with the problems and the difficulties that it found itself in in the past in more circumstances than not, and the Government philosophy needs to become established, has become a reaction to external forces rather more than masters of our own destiny, and I accept that we can be masters of our own destiny

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T153 only to a certain degree; we are in an interdependent world and even the larger economies of the world must accept that fact. I would like to turn to a point that was originally raised by Mr. Cain, the question of development of the economic base, and my conclusion about the difficulties that we had in the past is that we have a structurally flawed and weak economic base, and Mr. Cain recited this phrase time and time again and I commend it for further thought, that development of the economic base of the Isle of Man has got to be fundamental to where we go from here. Now we have congratulated ourselves both in this document and I have heard members repeat it before, again in the last two days, about the rapid growth of the last two years, fortunately and circumstantially, I believe, since this Government came into power. Let me make a statement; rapid growth is bad. The end result is good but rapid growth is bad. It produces great stress within an economy, it creates victims of which we are all aware, and it cannot be something upon which we should be congratulating ourselves. It also must show that presumably we were behind and we are catching up, as I agree the Chief Minister has accepted time and time again, but I do not believe inherently that rapid growth is something we should be congratulating ourselves for. To return to the economic base we have a situation where from the figures that I saw for the first time in this document we have evidence that the finance sector grew 35 per cent. to a G.N.P. contribution of £65 million in 86/7. Now that is a subject on which one could talk endlessly but the only certain thing about it, I feel, is that it is not sustainable. It is not sustainable at that rate, it is structurally not sustainable, it would be a remarkable feature of world-wide note if it could be sustained at that sort of rate. Now, in those circumstances the development of our economic base in other areas is critical, is critical, if we are to manage our future independence economically. Now in the light of that I was absolutely amazed to hear the Minister for Industry comment that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves now we were stepping back on promotion for new industrial developments. Now I would have thought that that needed a lot of questioning (1) competition increases wages. It is a core objective of this Government to improve G.N.P. per capita and one measure of that is wages. I would have thought that more competition would have given a likelihood of improving wages and that would have been a core objective and that that promotion would have been maintained therefore. Furthermore the opportunities that exist world-wide now for the beginning of new businesses, for businesses that emerge from U.K. operations as spin-offs, are considerable. I would have thought this would have been the time for encouraging competition, for encouraging competition for the existing workforce within the industrial base, and to seek, if possible, to increase the contribution to G.N.P. of the industrial base. I am a firm believer in that industrial base is being where we should put a great deal of effort, but I hear that we are stepping back on promotion. Now how does that fit in with an overall plan for the development of this economic base? We must accept that the established performance of this economy since the war has been to slowly fall behind the United Kingdom and then to have a sudden and stressful catching up. The new member, Mr. North, reminded us of very similar circumstances only 15 years ago which I briefly experienced. I cannot accept that

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T154 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 that cycle of events which we seem to be regarding as in some way laudable, it is not acceptable, it is not laudable, and I think that it is not, in the final analysis, beneficial to the people of the Isle of Man. Now, the policy document is completely bereft, to my view, of any long-term plans for the development of the economic base of the Isle of Man and that is a major, major shortcoming. In terms of its provisions that it does attempt to put forward, the capital programme is an illustration of the thought processes of what I would call the 'Non- Priority Party'. I would never have expected to see priority become a dirty word, but I have seen in this House on a number of occasions priority, whenever it is mentioned, being responded to with chuckles and scorn by certain members, and I see now the other side of that argument: here is a capital programme which is so very, very, very provisional that really we cannot say anything about it and most of it might or might not happen, is about all we can say about it. Surely the shortcomings of that process can be seen by those who are making those decisions. The visible result is that we do not have a capital programme, we do not have any idea as to whether we can afford a programme which is building up a tremendous amount of slippage in its execution and I suggest that that is a chaotic situation. Such economic planning cannot be conducive to confidence in this Government, it cannot. In terms of the legislative programme, I was pleased to see a legislative programme; I feel that is a step to at least inform members where the legislative effort is going to be carried out. I consider that the total of the legislative programme is somewhat unrealistic and I think that is admitted to a degree. But the lack of clear priorities and the non-responsive nature of the legislative programme dismays me. There is a clear need which I have referred to time and time again: during a time of very, very rapid change in property values the people who are most at risk are not the purchasers of new houses, they are not the people who already own houses, they are people in rented properties, the landlords of which expect to pay suddenly vastly increased rents. No attempt has been made in the legislative programme to try and clarify their rights or try to in any way order their rights, and we have a very, very stressful situation within our economy based upon the tenants of rented properties and I think there was a clear need; considering the enormous effort that has been poured into other things, I think a solution, if only a Bill bringing together the provisions that exist at the moment so that they could be clearly expressed and therefore utilised by persons in difficulty, I think would have been very welcome by the people who we would hope to serve, in the light of which I find Bills to control bee-keeping somewhat laughable, I am afraid. I am also surprised that Executive Council or members of Executive Council should need to ask whether a Public Health Bill should be afforded priority. I find that quite astonishing. I mean, any vision of the future must entail the health of the community. The Public Health Bill is a matter of public health. Its name does not mean nothing at all; it is a matter of public health. What more materialistic contribution can we make to the quality of life of the people living on the Isle of Man than to improve their likelihood of good health? And I do not think that that question should have been asked, to be honest. Top of the Agenda — housing, and I see the House Purchase Scheme which is being proposed which, quite frankly, the kindest comment I can think of to make

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T155

is that it is not a very practical scheme. The unwillingness to accept the ideas from elsewhere has led, I believe, to this scheme being railroaded into the front line and already the populace now expect it; they have been told half-way through the summer recess that it is coming. I do not believe that there is any evidence to support the argument that soft loans are kind to people. In every instance I have seen soft loans used, whether it be to underdeveloped nations or to people seeking housing, I have seen more problems and downstream negatives created than positives, and I have to say that if that is the best scheme that could be created to deal with the vital issue of house purchase by persons in the Isle of Man, then it is a pretty poor job in my view. I also respond equally negatively, I am afraid, to the proposal for an immigration policy. I consider the reality of the proposal for controlling immigration that is put forward in the document to be so horrid and so abhorrent that I assume that it must be designed to convince us all that really it is better to do nothing and that we really would be better to circle the issue and not do anything about it. Furthermore, absolutely crucial to the ability of this Government to achieve any of its ends is the structure of the Civil Service. The most important component, to my mind, of that new structure is a new Chief Secretary. The advertisement which has been put out to seek the person who will fill this vital r ole to my mind is extremely poorly thought out. I need not go over the first part of my objection which is that his duties are somewhat confused and his responsibilities are certainly diffused, and Mr. Speaker has already referred to that, but certainly let me just raise the issue of salary. I cannot believe that we have accepted that we are going into the outside world to find a man with the necessary abilities — we have accepted that issue - and yet we are advertising, I am pretty certain it is below £30,000 a year for a Grade 5 civil servant on secondment from the United Kingdom when a Cabinet Secretary in the United Kingdom receives £81,000 a year. We are dealing with five levels below; we are dealing with a man who may only have a narrow experience of one department of the U.K. Civil Service. I cannot for the life of me think that such a man will have very much to contribute to our Isle of Man problem. We need a higher calibre man than that and we need to offer more money, and that problem has also got to be faced throughout the rest of the Civil Service. If we are to keep good managers so that members of Executive Council do not have the excuse of becoming day-to- day managers of their departments, then we are going to have to pay the going rate, and why this has been made into such a major obstacle I cannot understand. It should have been central to the Government's approach to the problems of the • future. One small matter that I would like to pursue for just a short time, the member Mr. North raised the issue of public relations and we have talked of this before and I support his views on this matter. One thing that intrigued me was the price of the policy document. When I got it it had a price on it, £1.70. Now given that all Government publications are priced on a standard basis, and my investigations tell me that the standard basis is 2p a page plus the cost for the cover and binding, so the normal price for this document would have been £4 to £5. So presumably £1.70 was a chosen price and it was chosen, I would assume, for some purpose in attempting to achieve a wider distribution or attempting to facilitate those who perhaps could make use of it acquiring a copy. I wonder why a price of 25p was not chosen and perhaps the price of a local newspaper would have been more

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T156 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

suitable. But it certainly, looking at the Gallery over the last two or three days, it certainly has not succeeded in arousing very much interest from the population in the discussion that we have been going through at great length. Now, the core aim of this Government has been defined as improvements in G.N.P. per capita, in other words improvement in the economic performance of the Isle of Man. I support that aim I support the fact that within a capitalist system the best way of increasing someone's quality of life is perhaps to increase his wealth and let him decide what to do with it: freedom of choice. But to that is going to be crucial productivity, and several other members have alluded to this, and that productivity is going to depend upon investment and investment is going to depend upon confidence in our economic planning. Investors will be scrutinising our economic policies for a number of features. They are going to be looking for a stable economy in which to develop their business; they are going to be looking for consistency of policies, they are going to be looking for positive thinking and prudence as well. They are not going to be looking for short-termism, they are going to be very wary of short-termism. Any politician in this House who thinks that 1991 is more important than 1992 is not going to be contributing to the overall future of this Island in my view. They are going to be looking at our progress to date and how we have used the opportunities that we have been offered, and they are going to be looking at the sort of economy that we are generating by our decision-making now and the choice really faces us now. We either continue the old unstable economy which the Isle of Man has suffered from, which attracts short-term speculators — we may as well face that, we attract those people because we offer rapid rates of change, we offer an economy which under-performs and then rapidly catches up during a period of great stress — we attract those sort of people. We do not attract the sort of people that contribute primarily to the common good. We have an economy which is erratic and stumbles from boom to bust. If we wish to create a better economy, then we have got to have long-term policies. We have got to have the sort of policies that attract people who are prepared to invest in machinery, in new businesses, in ideas, in services, in the sort of business that needs a reasonable stable and developing economy to progress, and to give a return for the risk that the investor has suffered. Now in the light of those questions I would like to know how it was decided that £50 million in reserves by 1991 will be sufficient, because certainly in view of the contribution of the finance sector, its extremely rapid growth, and I have to agree with the member who spoke about us cushioning ourselves against the inevitable downturn and I regret the responses which have been that we are only looking for that downturn and we will be happy. That is nonsense. We are looking for prudence, we are looking for trying to estimate what we will need to survive, for the Government to be a counter-cyclical spender during the period of temporary downturn in the economy so that we could retain stable, slow and consistent growth, and I object to the negativism which surrounds any kind of request for prudence, and I think that some justification should be put forward for a level of reserves which will meet certain requirements and I have seen a figure pulled out of the collective head and no further justification. So, to come back to where I started, I see a problem facing us: a potential failure of leadership. I do not think that that is because we have got the wrong leader. I think that is because there is a greater difficulty than even he estimated in getting

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T157 a consensus out of the members of his Cabinet, his Council of Ministers. They have had two years and much experience beyond that. They have surely stored up a vision of their own for the future. It is surely up to them to get together and pull together their vision of the future, their collective vision of the future, and it is no good us sitting back and saying 'It is okay as it is' and we will all enter this panic/inactivity cycle which the Isle of Man Government has suffered from for as long as I have observed it and the rest of us will be forced into a position of apparent Opposition. We must resist the trend to think short term, we must plan at least medium term, and it is only by agreeing such a plan in this Court that divisive discourse will be reduced and co-operation substituted. Now, all of that, the most concise way of putting all that, is to support Mr. Cain's amendment, in my view. I do not agree with the criticisms that have been put forward, and I do not think, in fairness to Mr. Irving,' do not think he really has understood the intention of the amendment I see no design in the amendment to produce a macro-economic review of the Isle of Man. The operative, the dominant word in my thinking in the amendment is 'cohesive' — the same word as 'coherent', it means the same thing, — it means 'do they fit together? Do all the plans that are put before us from all the independent departments, do they fit together into some means of achieving our policy aims?' Now there is not sufficient evidence, and the Chief Minister asked for input so here is the input: there is not sufficient evidence in that document to convince me, I suppose I am saying, and I do not think it will convince a number of other people, that we have a coherent plan for meeting our aims. Deemster Luft also seemed to suggest that, in opposing the amendment, there was some intention to ask each department to produce a separate plan, and that is not the case. My understanding of the amendment is quite clearly that we are looking for a cohesive policy document from Executive Council. The appearance of an Opposition within this House I think would be a matter of great regret to me. I feel that 24 men trying to do a major task, undertaken normally in other environments by much greater assemblies, cannot stand to have half of them essentially bickering with the other half. I therefore must put forward a request for leadership, not to undermine and not for negative reasons, not because I want to criticise, but because I feel it is my responsibility to state clearly what I see is required.

Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I would like to comment first on some of the matters that have arisen from this report and the ensuing debate. The hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, spoke at great length about the need for flexibility in planning. In fact the Planning Committee wrote to every single individual member of Tynwald some time ago inviting them to come and talk to the committee about any matters concerning planning, either of detail or of policy, and so far this has only been taken up by the late Mr. Don Maddrell, by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Tourism and Mr. Corrin himself. We would certainly welcome other members who would like to talk about planning policies or detailed matters to come and talk with the Planning Committee, and this certainly perhaps might be of help to members like the hon. member of Council, Mr. Radcliffe, and the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Quine, who seem to have some concerns.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T158 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

We are also always ready to talk to other groups and in this respect have had at least one meeting with the National Farmers Union. I am grateful to His Honour Deemster Luft for what he said regarding planning and the planning system, and I hope that hon. members will bear in mind his remarks which are made with experience and knowledge of the planning process from the outside and without in any way himself being at this present time connected with the present Planning Committee. I think that the main concern regarding planning is that sometimes, unfortunately, those with genuine longstanding connections in a country area do not get permission to build a genuine home for themselves in that area. However, I am pretty certain that most hon. members and most people in this Island do not want people without connections with a particular area, of long standing, to be able to develop anywhere in the countryside and for the countryside to be covered with undesirable developments, which has happened in so many parts of the world, and I think the Republic of Ireland is a very good example of this, and I am glad to see my minister nodding, where you literally have ribbon development all through the Irish counties and I am sure nobody here in this Island wants that. Now the problem facing us is caused by the fact that planning law and planning practice, as the lawyers in this hon. Court will confirm, are based on land use and not the particular connections or the particular situation of an individual. Thus at the present time we often cannot give permission for Manx people with longstanding connections with an area to build houses in it without the near certainty that on appeal new residents and others without any such connection would be able to use the precedent to build nearby. Now I can assure hon. members that we are just as concerned — perhaps more because it is us, as you have heard, who get the criticism about this — as anyone else, and we are endeavouring to find a formula to enable those with longstanding connections with a country area to develop a home genuinely for themselves in it without creating a precedent for others with no such connection. However, as those who have previously been on the Planning Committee will well know, this is not an easy thing to achieve. There is particularly the danger of abuse and I am afraid some people do abuse things. A very eminent member of this Court has told me of an occasion when he was Chairman of the Planning Committee, he gave permission on the basis that it was going to be used as a farmhouse or farm worker's cottage and the very next week he drove past and found the site advertised for sale with planning permission, and this is just an example of the kind of problem that faces one. My minister has also touched on some of the other problems. However, we are determined to keep on trying to find a satisfactory solution. In the meantime I can categorically deny the idea that large and expensive developments in the country are favoured at the expense of small inexpensive ones. Indeed the inclination of all three members of the Planning Committee and its policies are in fact quite the opposite. We are in fact deeply concerned about the continuing and mounting attempts to convert more and more Manx farmhouses and houses in the country into bigger and bigger and bigger units until in some cases they amount to mini palaces or mini Hampton Courts. I could show hon. members the plan for one —

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T159

Mr. Delaney: Blenheim Palace.

Mr. Gilbey — which would quite amaze them. Indeed my minister is well aware of this. The danger of allowing such aggrandisement of ordinary Manx farmhouses is that they can never in the future be afforded to be lived, in either in terms of capital costs or running costs, by genuine Manx farmers, and this is of course all the more true because, as Mr. Speaker says, it is likely, with a steadily .declining farming income, that more and more Manx farmers will have to do that job part time and have other employment as well. Also one has to consider, if one has mini palaces in the Manx countryside what will become of them when those who have built them no longer want them? Who else in the future will want or be able to live in them? Will their only use, or would their only use, I should say, be that of similar places in the U.K. which have to be turned into offices or institutions? Therefore we believe that there should be a balance of housing in the country. We do not want to see every house in the country a big one with the occupants of every house unconnected with the countryside, and we must face the fact that this has happened in the adjacent isles, the U.K.; there are places in the south of England where no local person can afford to buy a house, and members may have seen cuttings showing that they have had to live in caravans instead because all the houses have been bought up by commuters and others unconnected with the countryside. Therefore we believe most strongly that we must keep houses of all sizes in the country and, accordingly, our policy is to limit the expansion of the size of present houses which stand in the countryside. Now my good friend the hon. member for Middle, Mr. North, suggested we should enter into a classic planning exercise to work out the amount of land available. I am glad to say that we have this information, there is no need to do it, and this is thanks to the hon. President of the Legislative Council, Mr. Anderson, and the hon. Chief Minister when they were Chairmen of the Local Government Board because they together introduced the present Development Plan which provides adequate land zoned for all uses — residential, commercial, office et cetera —

Mr. Kermode: Is it for sale?

Mr. Gilbey: — for a population of 75,000. You can never, however much land you zone, unless the Government owns it, you cannot force people to sell it, but with rising prices you usually find that people are tempted to sell. It is no good thinking that just because you zone the whole countryside you can make people sell land where you might want it developed, you would just get development where you do not want it, but I believe that those who have studied the Development Plan should congratulate those who were responsible for drawing it up and having it approved.

Mr. Kermode: If they will not sell how can you develop it?

The Governor: The hon. member has had more than his share of the debate already.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T160 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

Mr. Gilbey: The hon. member for Middle, Mr. North, also said that our P.R. is not good. How right he and others who say the same are. But I am sure that as someone skilled in P.R. and advertising he would agree that it is no good concentrating on the P.R. till you have got the product right, and I believe the product we must particularly get right is our system of Cabinet government and its operation. I believe that the hon. senior member for Onchan, Mr. Karran, was extremely brave in what he said, and although I would not have chosen all his language myself, the basis of what he said was absolutely correct. No-one could support the theory and principle of Cabinet government more than I do, and therefore I find it very sad indeed when some ministers all too often are contradicting, undermining, if not criticising each other, the Government's policies and other parts of Government and even criticising in this Court policies which have been agreed by the Council of Ministers itself. I believe that the criticism of other parts, of Goverment is even worse because those other parts, such as the Consumer Affairs Board, or the Post Office, or in my case the Civil Service Commission, have no minister to protect them or speak for them in the Council of Ministers, and therefore I believe that it is essential that such bodies should become under and be responsible to one of the existing ministries or to the Chief Minister himself because, if they do not, the position of people responsible for them is and will be completely untenable and I should think that people will not be foolish enough to accept jobs as being in charge of them. It may be all right for such bodies to be criticised by backbenchers, but it is quite intolerable for them to be criticised by members of the Council of Ministers in public when the Council of Ministers actually have powers of direction over them and can always ask them to come to the Council of Ministers to discuss problems. Another matter that needs putting right, if we are to have the correct P.R., is the public criticism of members of the Civil Service to which I have referred previously. Time and time again the Officers Association have made the point that nothing is more damaging to the morale of the Civil Service than public criticism that can be identified as being pointed at individual members of the service, and I must point out that there is no business anywhere where the board of directors, which is equivalent to ourselves, would publicly criticise its staff, whatever they may say about the staff in private and behind closed doors, and I believe we should copy the policies of industry regarding this and if we do have complaints, which we may have, they should be taken up through the proper internal channels. There are two more things that I feel I must say regarding the Civil Service. I am afraid my very good friend the hon. member for Peel, Mrs. Hannan, may yesterday have given the impression that there is a bias against ladies in the Civil Service, now I believe this must be put absolutely right for public record. The civil service is and has been an equal opportunity employer. In the last ten years women have made very great progress in the Civil Service. Indeed it is interesting that almost exactly half the genera[ service class of the service are women. Now the reason why fewer ladies reach the top is really very simple, that in most cases they choose to join the service, leave it to have families and then re-join it, which is their right, and I should emphasise that the Civil Service has the same maternity benefit scheme as the U.K. Civil Service which matches up or exceeds the sexual discrimination provisions of the U.K. I would also like to comment on what Dr. Orme said. We do pay the going rate

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T161

for civil servants, we pay the same rate as our U.K. counterparts for the same jobs, and this is absolutely a fact. Now for him to try and equate the job of the Chief Secretary of the Isle of Man Government with a Permanent Secretary in a department across is, as you know, Your Excellency, from your experience, absolute nonsense. If I might take the ministry with which you yourself were connected, you know as well as I do that you were there talking of 400,000 civil servants and other non- military people; you are talking of a quarter of a million in the military, you are talking of a total budget of £20,000 million a year. How can we compare the person who is in that position as a Permanent Secretary with the principal secretary we aim to appoint for the Manx Government with our turnover, our expenditure of just over £100 million a year, with our population in its entirety of some 70,000 to 75,000? They do not equate. Now in the Civil Service positive steps have been underway for a considerable time to improve morale, to increase the retention rate and to improve recruitment, and these include training for the first time ever, better P.R. for the service and its members, better management to increase job satisfaction, special new allowances which are now payable in the U.K., improved working conditions — and these affect people a lot — and improved recruitment techniques, and many hon. members will have visited the stand on the Civil Service at the recent exhibition at the Sea Terminal which, I think, attracted very favourable comments both from hon. members of this Court and from the public, and I think we should congratulate those members of the service who caused that exhibition to be put together. I should, Your Excellency, like to touch briefly on a very vital industry to this Island: agriculture and fishing. As Mr. Speaker has intimated, I believe that more needs to be done to help these vital industries survive, let alone grow. The situation in agriculture has probably never been so serious since the slump years of the 1930s, and this is true of the whole of the British Isles. As we all know, the situation in this Island is worse on account of our generally poorer land, the fact that owing to transport costs we have to pay more for the products we need, the tractors, the fertiliser et cetera, and yet we get less for products that are exported, and I think that this grave situation, which is not a question of crying wolf this time, as I think one other hon. member said, proved by the number of farmers of long standing who are, sadly, either retiring early or cutting down their farming activities. Very quickly I should like to comment on the point made by the hon. member for Peel about electricity generation. I do think there is a danger of having it all in Douglas because if everything is there and there is some accident which destroys the operation, which is always possible, however unlikely, this Island really would be brought to a grinding halt and not just for a short time but a very long time, and that is why I feel that we should have more than one power production point. Regarding the Aqua Centre, I agree with those other hon. members who have intimated that the present proposals are too grandiose. In particular I have not met a single person who supports the idea of an outside heated area which will be heated even in the winter. Most people that I have met think this is really a fantasy in the Isle of Man. I naturally support the idea of a sports centre and perhaps, mentioning it, it goes without saying I would like it at St. John's.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T162 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

A Member: Whereabout, Walter?

Mr. Gilbey: However, I agree with those who say it should be built up over a time, and I would start with quite a simple running track, then perhaps an all- weather pitch with the appropriate changing facilities. There is no need to go in for grandiose grandstands and other facilities, at least initially. Your Excellency, there are very many points to welcome in this report and I certainly will not detail these, and I am therefore sorry to have to express concern about three major aspects. The first point is that which has been mentioned by some other hon. members, that I believe the whole tone of the report is too heavily biased towards listing achievements rather than setting out the challenges, how the challenges should be met, the cost of meeting the challenges, and in what order of priority they should be met. Indeed I would submit that the whole report is too much of a progress report and a statement of general political aspirations and not enough of a positive forward plan. However, in fairness I am glad that the Chief Minister slightly redressed this in his opening speech. It is for these reasons that I would strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for West Douglas who is asking for a positive plan of action, how that action should be taken, the order of priority and the costs involved.The hon. member for Rushen, Dr. Orme, has pointed out that this does not throw away or destroy the general policy objectives of the yellow report before us. It accepts them however, I personally will support the amendment by the hon. member of Council, Mr. Irving.

The Governor: Which has not yet been seconded.

Mr. Gilbey: In which case, Your Excellency, I will have pleasure in seconding that because I think that although it says much the same, it is likely to attract a broader degree of support. My second main point is that, although the economy is more prosperous, we have not yet done enough to make it as caring as it should be. There is no doubt, as the Chief Minister said, that prosperity is not being shared equally by all sections of the community, and it is clear that just through the financial sector this is unlikely to happen. This is clearly shown by appendix 3 of this report which proves that since the starting of the financial sector's growth in 1969 in fact our G.N.P. and G.D.P., compared to the U.K., have worsened and not improved. As Mrs. Hannan has said, the U.K. itself is not one of the richest countries in the world, indeed it is rather the reverse, and I think there is a lot to be said for the cartoon in one of the recent papers which showed that averages can be misleading because they are based on the very high salaries of some of those in the financial sector. I, however, entirely agree with the hon. Chief Minister that it is very difficult to spread the benefits to all and this is particularly true in respect of long-term policies. The Chief Minister is also absolutely right in saying that it cannot be done by the Government decreeing minimum wages. Minimum wage controls have never worked anywhere. While we are working out a long-term solution, I personally believe the most effective short-term answer to help those in work who are on very low wages is to increase the scope of family income supplement, both as to the amounts payable

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T163

and also by extending upwards the range of incomes on which it is paid. The second group in real need are those who for various reasons such as age or infirmity cannot work. I was glad to hear the hon. Minister for the Department of Health and Social Security outline his plans for dealing with this and promise a report to Tynwald in or shortly after December. I do feel the most urgent action is required and I hope that we will concentrate the help that we are giving on those in real need and not introduce increases to benefits which are spread amongst people regardless of their need. I was pleased that the hon. minister seemed to concur with the idea that perhaps the quickest and easiest way of helping those in real need who are not in work is by increasing the amounts and limits for supplementary benefit, and I would certainly welcome this. I also warmly welcome and applaud his proposals for a new Social Services Division of his department and also his proposals for tightening up on the issue of work permits. My final point is one which I believe is of very great importance but unfortunately does not seem to greatly concern the majority of the Council of Ministers. It is that of what I believe to be the present over-fast growth in the population through immigration into the Island. In this report I regret that it seems to be dealt with in a cursory manner of less than half a page. Furthermore it is surprising that the report of the Social Issues Committee which has been circulated regarding population growth is not even mentioned in this document despite the fact that this document was clearly produced after that report was available. But, as I have said, I believe this is one of the most important matters causing the most concern. Why? First of all because of its effects on housing. My friend the hon. minister for my department has done a superb job in increasing the supply of houses available and I think he is worthy of the warm congratulation that has been given to him and my other colleague the hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Leventhorpe, regarding this. However, meeting supply alone cannot deal with this problem. In economic matters there is a combination of supply and demand and to be successful you cannot just ignore the demand side, and the demand for houses is clearly caused by the ever- increasing flow of people into this Island. This has also led to the increased costs of all building to which Mr. Speaker so graphically referred. It also has social effects because no community anywhere can have too many new people arriving in too short a space of time without there being • problems; it does not matter where it is in the world. It has also undoubtedly caused some of the other social problems such as evictions and homelessness. It also leads to ever-increasing demands for services, some of which demands will undoubtedly outpace the ability to supply those services. Dr. Orme, the hon. member for Rushen, is indeed right in saying that over-rapid growth in anything is bad. That does not mean that those of us who say that want stagnation or depression. We are merely saying that, to be successful, growth should be sustained and sustainable. It is also true that as the Island becomes ever more desirable more and more people will want to come here, and therefore I believe the number one priority must be to bring in either the proposed or another system of monitoring and, if appropriate, controlling population growth and I would hope that action on this vital matter could be speeded up and come earlier than the end of March.

Government Policy Review — Debate Continued T164 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

The Governor: Hon. members, I have caught three more sets of eyes and we have of course the reply and then two amendments to consider and then the substantive vote, so I think it would be wise for us to break now for 20 minutes. We will meet at 23 minutes past the hour.

The Court adjourned at 4.07 p.m.

GOVERNMENT POLICY REVIEW — DEBATE CONCLUDED - MOTION APPROVED

The Governor: The member for Douglas South.

Mr. Duggan: Thank you, Your Excellency. Your Excellency, I shall be brief because I do not want to be repetitious; we have heard it all before here today and yesterday. However, Your Excellency, I do agree, for once, with Mr. Gilbey on two or three points, especially on the point when he mentions future development, possibly, by the M.E.A. in Pulrose. I think it would be environmentally wrong and I fully support him on that view, and I would object to any further development in that area. I also agree, Your Excellency, with Mr. Cain, the member for West Douglas, when he talks about people on low incomes, sir, and recently, like other members, I received a letter from the Isle of Man Retired Members Association of old age pensioners by a Mr. Gale, and this is dated the 17th of this month, and it goes on, I will read you just briefly read part of it, sir, regarding pension supplements. and it says, 'Dear Sir, during the last three years my committee and I have tried in many ways to create interest in Tynwald in improving the lot of the poor and pensioners on our Island who are finding the cost of living on the Island has left them behind. The purchasing power of their pensions is not able to maintain the same level of that in the UK which is acknowledged to be the lowest in Europe'. So I know Mr. Brown is looking at this and he is going to come forward with a report, but there is concern; we have been here two years now and there has been not a lot done apart from the extra heating in the winter for these people. The cost of living, Your Excellency, on the Island is even higher than Jersey. I noted this when I was in Jersey recently. You take the price of coal, meat or bread, it is all more expensive here. A sliced loaf, I think, is 20 pence dearer on the Island, sir, than what it is in the United Kingdom, so the money certainly does not go as far as it should do. Also I would like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Delaney, on his programme of the housing, he has done a lot of work there, and I think he is going to continue till he gets those 500 houses, and he can rest assured, Your Excellency, he will have my full support. I also support Mr. Delaney coming forward with the Public Health Bill. Again, like Mr. Cain, the member for West Douglas, has stated, it is badly needed; we need this protection for our environment, for our constituents; especially with the power station in my constituency, there is a lot of concern. When I was a member of the Local Government Board Mrs. Hanson and myself

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T165 and Mr. Cannan, we were always pushing Mr. Walker regarding this legislation and I know he was a busy man at the time but we used to keep repeating it and repeating it, 'Where is the Public Health Bill?' and the sooner it comes before the Keys, sir, the better. The Minister of the D.H.S.S. in his policy statement, he did not mention AIDS. I do not want to keep bringing up AIDS, Your Excellency, but it is a dreadful disease and I think, really speaking, we must not be complacent about it, and I hope that our nurses and our medical profession are fully trained to deal with AIDS because in the next two years I believe it is going to certainly increase dramatically. The Minister of the D.H.P.P., Mr. Callin, in his policy, he has not mentioned the Marine Drive. Now I know Mr. Callin has spoken but I would like Mr. Callin, to keep in mind the Marine Drive, it is a lovely scenic route, and I know there are other roads to be fixed and repaired, Your Excellency; at present they are doing one in my constituency Groves Road, which badly needed doing which we welcome. But, Mr. Callin, do not forget the Marine Drive. I would like to see some up-to- date figures on that. Now Mr. North, the member for Middle, mentioned the incinerator. Now I do not want to go into depth, Your Excellency, because I could speak for a long time on this, but regarding the incinerator, I think it is a bad thing for the Island, I do not think it is a good thing at all. I think it is too costly, it is impractical, and I think bailing, as I have said in the past, is the answer. As I say we could talk all day on the incinerator but we will deal with that when it comes before the House, but I am just forewarning, Your Excellency, I will not be supporting the Department of the Environment on the incinerator, I think it is totally wrong, and just for Mr. North's knowledge, the Chief Environmental Health Officer, he did not agree with an incinerator either.

Mr. Delaney: The ex-chief.

Mr. Duggan: The ex-chief. But that man had looked at it thoroughly, and, incidently, Mr. Walker, when he was the Chairman of the Local Government Board, he came forward to this Court and he proposed incineration but after a year or two he agreed that baling was the 'in' thing, and now, as I say, he has gone back with the minister of the department, agreeing incineration. So it has been up and down for years, so I am just forewarning, especially for the new members here in this Court, watch yourselves regarding incinerators because they are very, very costly. Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Leventhorpe: Your Excellency, I would like to support my colleague the hon. member for Glenfaba in his comments on the planning procedure and activities where. Really there is very little that I would want to add to what he has said; I confirm everything he did. There were just two points. (1) We had the Chairman of the Jersey Planning Committee over here quite recently and he effectively congratulated us and warned us in no uncertain terms about allowing development in the countryside without very severe restriction, because they have ruined their island. I know it is a lot smaller and it is a lot fuller, but they have wrecked a lot of the beauty of Jersey. The second point: I think the hon. member for Middle referred to redevelopment

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T166 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 of the town centres. Now this is very much to be wished for, but it is an expensive alternative because you first of all have to buy the properties, you have to knock them down, you will probably have to redevelop the drains and the electricity supply and everything else and it is going to cost in the region of a million pounds an acre. Now that is putting a tremendous premium on your plot value and it is no wonder that developers still like to go for the green fields. It may be that Government will have to address itself to this and decide to offer or produce some form of subsidy so that this is done, but I just give that word of warning on the question of redevelopment. On the question of housing, the report has three full pages on it; I think it is given very fair prominence. I think that we are getting on with the housing issue. I would like to thank all those who have spoken on housing; many suggestions have been made, some useful ones which we will take on board, and I promise that there will be no let-up in getting on with having those houses up for people to live in. Your Excellency, reading this document, I agree again with many people who said it is valuable, it is a very useful expression of the work that is being done and is being done, it is a progress report, and it is a work of reference, it is something which one can check up on to see what is happening. But it is not really a policy statement in the terms that I was looking for, and I know the hon. member for West Douglas and others were, and I find myself slightly torn at the moment whether to vote for the member of Council's amendment or the member for West Douglas's amendment. I do not like an open-ended commitment without a date in. I like to see a positive date which ties people down, because I think we have had two years nearly in office now and I think that it is time we had an overall strategy, and I use that word, not just a macro-economic policy, but a strategy. I do not see it yet, and when I look at the first page of this policy objective it has been quoted by various people: central policy objective, '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 populaltion bearing in mind the need to safeguard the quality of life and overall environment'. Now as an expression of corporate strategy that is unexceptionable but also not much use because it does not give any idea how you are going to get there, and that is where I think we need this positive, cohesive document, and going on from that, the following line, 'During the year individual Departments have been developing policies...'. Now that again is just the point: it is individual departments following their own lines. How well is it being co-ordinated? We do not know, and it is absolutely essential that this is co-ordinated. We come to the capital programme. Now there are all sorts of desirable things in that, but somebody at some point has to be tough and say, `No, we cannot have that'. Again I agree on this occasion with the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin: the Chief Minister has to be tough; he has to be firm and say, `No, that is something which we are doing without', and there will be some hard even harsh decisions to make — whether we have sewerage or a swimming pool, a hospital extension or a running track. There are a lot of things which are not mutually exclusive but we cannot have them all. We neither have the financial resources nor the physical resources to build these things in competition, as is mentioned in this report, in competition with all the other development that is going on and is needed in the Island, and I know that one member — I cannot remember now who — did state

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T167 that housing should have priority over everything else, even the offices. I do not think that that is right, I think that we must maintain a balance, but certainly there must be no let-up in the housing element. The hon. member for Middle referred to the Poole Report and said that it had been badly handled. I am afraid I have to agree with him on that. The Poole Report is really in two parts: it is one concerned with staffing and one concerned with the Government structure. Now it would appear that the staffing side of it is being implemented, and unfortunately some of the recommendations in that are not at all well received by our civil servants, understandably, because it means in many cases downgrading, and at this particular point we cannot afford to allow the morale of our Civil Service to deteriorate. It is they who run this country, not us. It is essential that we maintain them; we have heard that they are getting improved recruiting conditions, improved general benefits, but I do think that it is very important that the Poole Report is not forced onto the Civil Service too drastically. The other side of it was the structure element and there were a number of recommendations or suggestions in it which I do not see in the policy document. Just to take a few examples, there was a suggestion that we should look into privatising the airport. It is something which I have suggested in this Court but there is no reference. There is a suggestion that tourism becomes an agency: downgraded. Again it is something which does not seem to fit into the policy objectives. Transport, it was suggested, should be taken out of the hands of the Tourism Department — no mention of that, and there was a suggestion, and I think a very sound one, that all Government property should come under one minister, a Minister of Works or whatever name you would like to give it. That, in the circumstances of this Island, seems to me eminently sensible, but again there is no suggestion that there will be any change in the format of Government at the moment. I hope that these questions will be looked at further. Now a little puff for the Board of Consumer Affairs, which again does not get a mention in this document, and I think that in the development of our prosperous and caring society it has a lot to offer, particularly on the caring side, looking after the interests of the consumers, that is, our public, our people, and I know the chairman has said that she is very disappointed, as am I, that there is nothing in on the Moneylenders Bill which was promised for this session, and I do hope that the Chief Minister will be able to implement that, fit that into the programme at an early date. I also hope that as soon as the Monopolies and Mergers Bill is ready that too can be put in because I believe at the moment the Island is suffering from monopolies which are not acting in the best interests of the Island. So, Your Excellency, I feel that we still are lacking and need desperately this long- term plan. I hope that when we get this new Government Secretary he will be able to set things in motion with the Economic Committee and I hope that they will feel that they can call on the many experts on this Island in a whole range of activities; people are only too happy to give of their experience and their time to benefit the Island. I believe that they would help the task of that committee very greatly. I have heard the suggestions for the M.E.A. moving its new generating plant. I will certainly take that back to that unit. I would like to see a lot of further new thinking, new ideas coming forward and new developments. For instance, I wonder whether it is even sensible for us

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T168 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 now, with building societies on the Island, to try and provide mortgages for our people. Wouldn't it be better to do it through the building societies and, if necessary, subsidise the element of the subsidy that we do provide? Do we in fact need, for instance, the M.E.A.? Is it sensible to borrow through the Treasury? Mightn't they get a better package through a merchant bank or through the providers of the machinery? Obviously it will still need Government, Treasury approval, but I believe that we could lighten, if you like, the load of the Treasury by doing such actions. 1992, which has been mentioned, a very important date. Somebody said 1991 was more important to members, but 1992 is more important for the Island. I believe, whatever the Minister for the Treasury says, that our approach to this should be from the other end: we should decide what we would like to have, how we would like to see the Island positioned in 1992 and then prevail on the U.K. Government, as our agents, if you like, in Europe, to achieve that. I think that they could be persuaded, provided the right arguments are used and we are not too greedy. But I think we should set out a sort of 'best case' all our industries and activities here and see whether that could not be incorporated into the U.K.'s position in negotiating in 1992. Finally, Your Excellency, my minister has asked me to apologise for his frequent absences this morning, but he was getting rid of scrap cars, (Laughter) not his own, but he has had a lot of work to do to try and get the Island tidied up as part of his duties. Thank you, Your Excellency.

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, I am tempted to say there is a omission in this document, that I think we should have a space programme because we certainly have some potential astronauts in this hon. Court. But really, listening to my hon. friend from Rushen this morning, this afternoon — yes, it was this afternoon; after being here two days you really get a bit disorientated — you could imagine that we were in really the middle of a jungle as far as politics were concerned and that over the past years really nothing had been achieved. I believe there are few economies where the same exists as does in the Isle of Man, where we have no national debt, we have a considerable amount of reserves built up, and we have made considerable progress. I will admit that the leap in the graph in the industrial sector has been spectacular and maybe not as desirable to be done that way, but it has not, in a sense, been generated by this Government; the climate has but the other has not. But if your take the top of page 57 in this and the manufacturing industry: 27,000 in '83/84; 31,000 '84/85; 32,000'85/$6; 38,000 '86/87 and 40,000 '87/88. That is the direction in which we have been going and I think there is a lot to be said for it. A lot of people have been saying that there is no co-ordination. I see all these sectors as the legs under the Manx economy and each one, as I see it is not in conflict with the one beside it, but is an integral part of the system that is working together, and I would think, as a growing plant, that it grows together and is flourishing together, and I see no conflict whatever. To be in a position where you are going to have all sorts of forecasts that are going into the turn of the century, at this stage I do not believe that we have the talent or the ability in this Court or in any society to do that sort of thing, but we have got to capture the moment as it stands, make the best use of that moment, and use the circumstances in which we find ourselves to do the best we can in every

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T169

sector for our people. We are aware of the areas. I know from the agricultural industry; I am not going to dwell on that because I happen to be involved in that. I know the difficulties that there are there, grave difficulties, and I am aware of the difficulties there are in those people who are in poverty traps and I believe that those problems are being addressed. I was a little concerned about my hon. friend from Onchan, in that he, I hope, was not writing off the town centre redevelopment, because I think this is very important. When I was actually the chairman of the Local Government Board there was quite a bit done in the centre of Peel and I remember the member for Peel even at that time was really ridiculing the cost, as it was, of doing those houses which at that time were nearly £40,000. But I believe they were done in a way which is going to preserve the town centre of Peel in the way I think it ought to be done, and I know it was long before the present member's time; it is two or three members back at that time, but really we were criticised when I was Chairman of the Local Government Board at that time for the cost of doing that. These are costs that, if we are to maintain the fabric of our society, have got to be faced up to, and I believe that it is just no use writing them off, and there are whole areas around here that should be redeveloped; it is a disgrace to this Island that they are going to be left like that, and if it is a million pounds an acre it costs, I believe that is a situation that has got to be faced up to. I think it is diabolical to go into a place like what the centre of Liverpool has been and to see it going dead and people mushrooming out in every other direction and building in the green countryside. I believe there has got to be development in the countryside to a certain degree in the villages, controlled development, but I do not think you can write off the town centres by any means whatever and I think it is important, and this is why peripheral development of shopping areas outside the town centres prevent the infrastructure being put right, and I am glad to see what is happening at the moment in relation to the car park and development, that in the town centre of Douglas we are bringing the shopping back into that centre to bring life into it. I hope with it can come people who will reside there, who will put life into a centre because there is nothing worse than a dead town centre, and I believe the planners have a terrific responsibility for the future. I wish them every luck because, Your Excellency, I know that there are two sets of criteria in planning: 'One as far as I am concerned and one for everybody else', I have known that for a very long time, and we used to have the advocates coming in in the morning opposing a thing and the same people turned up in the afternoon giving the other argument completely the other way round, and I said, 'You are the gentleman who was here this morning', you know. But that will continue and in planning you will not win them all. But I think it is important that we do hit a balance, that it is not all development in the Douglas, Onchan conurbation; I think the village areas and Port Erin and Port St. Mary and Ramsey and all, it really needs to be the right sort of development in those areas as well, and that we work in a bit of industry. I know there has been criticism of industry being put in a residential area, but I can think of Strix in Port Erin that went in during my time and that has been ideal, in that it has enabled the women of Port Erin who work shifts in that business to walk there without having to provide a car, because many of the people, the husband has got the car,

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T170 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 the only car in the family, gone to work, and they must be in a position to work. So I think that it has got to be rationalised in such a way that in fact there are, although developed properly, industrial business available within walking distance of residential areas. So I think it is a big and an important job, but I am a bit concerned, Your Excellency, because we have gone through this what used to be the estimates debate really and I hope we will not have to repeat that with two days later on this year we have already done it, and we will hopefully indicate where the priorities are or the message has gone out to the Chief Minister and his ministers. I congratulate the Chief Minister. I think in the two years he has been in office he has done a very good job. He has not let the tension get to him, he has been relaxed, he has been able to come back, and I had envisaged by now that those black hairs would have turned completely white and they are still there and I hope they will continue to be like that, and that is the sort of temperament you need for this job, not one that flies off the handle and goes up in the air, but one that keeps his cool and is in control of the situation. It is, in my view, a team effort. I appreciate the people saying that somebody going off on a tangent on some scheme that is not going to work out should not happen. But I think it is a team effort, it is a team effort within the departments to work and each make a contribution to the economy of this Island, and I think that team effort should be every member of Tynwald involved in that, working together, not striving to pull one another down, but building something for this Island, and for the future and giving backing to those who are in positions of responsibility for the future and well-being of our community, helping especially those in the greatest need and those in need especially of homes and those sort of conditions. Your Excellency, I will be supporting the document and neither of the amendments. Thank you.

Mr. Quine: Your Excellency, perhaps I could first deal with the form rather than the content. The Chief Minister has quite rightly described this report as a hybrid document, and that it is. It does not provide a basis for review of policy; it re-states the central policy objective, provides an interesting synopsis of the economy and a series of departmental reports. Within the text there is certainly reference to aspects of policy and in a few instances one can identify new policies. But it has little relationship to policy planning as such, and I refer specifically to the document produced by a Standing Committee of Executive Council in 1982 which spelt this matter out in great detail as to how it should be approached. That is how long ago this matter was looked at, that is when it was realised that there should be a formalised system, an arrangement for evaluating policies and for forward planning, but it has not been carried forward. It does not provide a comprehensive picture of the policies which are to carry our Island residents forward to the commendable central policy objective. I have no quarrel with that central policy objective at all, it is really commendable, it is first class. But what one looks for in this document or what I am looking for is the programme, the actual means by which we are going to get there and how each department's efforts are going to dovetail together; that is not in this document. An interesting report, in many ways an informative report, but it is not, as I

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T171 say, a proper basis for review of Government policies, and indeed 1 think the Chief Minister has intimated that that is the case; he said there was insufficient information in this document for responsible judgement, 1 think those were the Chief Minister's own words. So I need say no more; that is what the Chief Minister said about it. I would in particular like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Cain. I found that a particularly interesting speech, and he, I think, pronounced very clearly what is needed in this direction, he explained it to us in a clear and logical way, and coming from Mr. Cain, I think it will be generally agreed in this hon. Court it has a stamp of authority. After all, who else in this Court can speak with the same qualifications as the hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Cain, on these matters? I therefore have no hesitation in supporting Mr. Cain's amendment, and indeed I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment put forward by the hon. member for the Council Mr. Irving. Now the Minister for the Treasury, (Laughter) I hav not said anything yet, Your Excellency.

Mr. Brown: I would not like to be David North! (Interruption)

Mr. Quine: The minister for the Treasury has explained to us, as best he could, (Laughter) how the objectives of the Treasury have been put together and he outlined those for us, and he will be surprised to learn I have no quarrel with them. But unfortunately —

Mr. Candan: You were able to understand them?.

Mr. Quine: With great difficulty.(Laughter)Unfortunately what he has said to us does not make up the deficiency in this document, it does not explain the policies which are to achieve the objective, that is what we are saying, and I can stand here and relate a dozen objectives, but if we cannot get there it does not matter. He referred of course to Tynwald at times running off at a tangent and doing their own thing. Well what else can you expect when priorities are not being determined by Executive Council? That will inevitably be the result of that omission, of that deficiency. Your Excellency, in the light of the passionate and heated debates which have taken place in this hon. Court since last October, I cannot help but reflect on the amendment to the resolution to last year's policy report which I moved and which failed to carry. Hon. members will recollect, Your Excellency, that the essence of that amendment was to ask Executive Council to take action to do two things; it was simply an amplification of the resolution asking them to do two things: to ensure a balanced development of the economy and, secondly, to protect the social fabric of the community. You will recollect, hon. members, that this hon. Court was assured at that time by various members of Executive Council that that amendment was unnecessary and superfluous. Well I would ask you to try to reconcile the debates which have taken place in the last 12 months with that resolution that failed to carry. I think it would be generally agreed now that there was substance in that amendment and in fact it should have carried.

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T172 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

The over-heating of certain sectors of the economy has accelerated since then and the social fabric of our society has been damaged, there is no denying that, and in fact in some respects it has been damaged irreparably. Home ownership is further removed for many ordinary Island residents; families are being made homeless because of the dearth of rentable accommodation, and workers in less favourable sectors of the economy and many old age pensioners and other disadvantaged persons have become relatively worse off. Division within our society has been accentuated and resentment fostered. I believe, Your Excellency, that more could have been done to mitigate those consequences. I have no quarrel with the general direction in which we are moving and, yes, in general our Island economy is flourishing and many residents, old and new, are benefiting from the increased wealth generated, and so it should be. Somewhat belatedly Government have moved to counter the worst effects of the over-heating of the economy and the overloading of the infrastructure. But what concerns me is the virtual absence of any positive measures to effectively manage the economy a professed plank of Government's own central policy objective. If you have a tap with a hosepipe on it and you turn the tap on full the hosepipe will spring a leak, it will spring several leaks, and ultimately it will burst. It is not a matter whether you turn the tap on or off completely; it is a matter of how you adjust the tap to permit the flow. It is a matter of tuning; it is not a matter of absolute on or absolute off I am referring to adjustments and those adjustments quite clearly are possible. We have seen in the contribution, the very interesting contribution in this report, from the Minister for Industry, precisely how that can be done where he has a problem and he has put a damper on the initiative to cultivate new industries: a very simple example of how this fine tuning can be brought about. I do not accept that the thought of a slight dampening down, a slight turning off of the tap, is going to frighten investors away at all, far from it. I would suspect that what we will have by that action, by the indication of better management of our economy, is to attach a premium to what the Island has to offer. What we have to bear in mind, to my way of thinking, is that we must get a proper paced progtession in the economy. We should not let it make its own way at whatever speed it wishes to proceed at. We should bear in mind that we are here essentially to satisfy need, the need of our community as a whole, and not to satisfy greed, the greed of a certain section. The central policy objective, Your Excellency, is commendable. My concern centres on Government's reluctance to set a pace which can be sustained without casting the already disadvantaged to the wolves. The need, as I say, is for a more balanced approach, a more finely tuned approach to the betterment of the community as a whole, and I repeat, to the betterment of the community as a whole. I will now address more specifically the plight of the disadvantaged to whom I referred earlier, in particular those old age pensioners who have to subsist on their pensions, possibly certain other benefits. You will recollect, hon. members that this hon. Court in December 1987 tasked the Minister for Health and Social Security to make recommendations to Tynwald to assist these good people, and I am pleased to hear from the minister today that in fact considerable progress is being made in that direction and I commend him for carrying that forward. There could be various solutions to the problem, but one approach, which has been mentioned here, I think, by at least two hon. members

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T173 today and to which I subscribe, is to look at the bench mark for supplementary benefit and the amount of supplementary benefit and to tune them to favour the recipients, and similarly to look at family income supplement, which in itself is regrettable, that we still have nearly 400 people on family income supplement, but look at that and perhaps attune that as a transitional measure to alleviate that problem. Let those at the bottom end benefit more from what wealth is being generated. But as I say, I realise full well that the minister is progressing this matter and I am sure in his good hands it will come to fruition and we will have a meaningful report from him by the end of the year. I welcome the Minister for Health and Social Security's commitment to pursue health education and preventive medicine. Hopefully this will lead in the very near future to legislation to regulate tobacco smoking in the workplace, specifically in the workplace, and I would hope it will also lead to a proper programme of education to deter young people from taking up smoking. Only this morning there was a reference from an authoritative gentleman from the United Kingdom who referred to smoking as the single most preventable cause of death, if I picked up his words correctly. It is a very serious problem, it is a problem for which we should have a specific policy, and a specific element of that should be education to deter young people from taking up smoking. (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.) 1 see smoke signals, Your Excellency. I support the department's more flexible approach in deciding whether or not to adopt certain United Kingdom social security legislation. I share the department's reservations in regard to the newly introduced United Kingdom Income Support and Family Credit Scheme. I fear much has been done in the past in the name of reciprocity and I do not think we can be very proud of it. Taken in the whole I must say that if there was one section of the report that I took some comfort from and found some reassurance in it was the contribution from the Minister for Health and Social Security. The problems confronting the agricultural sector, they are numerous and they have been spoken of here today by several members and I must concede that the solution to many of them is without the gift of the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. But there are one or two things which I think we could address ourselves to and I know in point of fact that some of these are being addressed. I note from the figures the contraction in the number of agricultural holdings and clearly this mitigates against the department's stated objective of fostering the continuation of family run businesses to sustain rural communities and the Manx way of life. The Agricultural Holdings Loan Scheme is a good scheme and it can assist the established tenant farmer, but with the present astronomical prices of farms there is little prospect of the ordinary agricultural worker achieving a farm of his own, as a tenant or as an owner; he is being priced out of the market in the same way as many ordinary people are being priced out of the house market. There would appear to be three facets of this problem: first of all there is the sale of farm buildings separate from the farms: that seems to be going on now on quite a wide scale, and secondly, as indicated in the figures, there is a scarcity of farms to be leased, and, thirdly, the all-important matter of price. I know where the sympathy of the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries lies in this matter but I would ask him to take once more a deep look at this matter to see what can

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T174 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 be done. There are two further points which I would commend to the minister: firstly, the stated objective of providing assistance to the agricultural industry at a similar level to that provided for United Kingdom farmers. And again this has been spoken of today and I think Mr. Speaker pointed to the difference of view on this and the particular fact that our farmers hold strongly that they are not receiving the same level of support, and this concern of the farming community, I know, will be well known to the minister. Indeed I think in an inverted sort of way the department themselves have pointed to the fact that perhaps we have not got our sums quite as complete as they should be, in the sense that they have stated in this report that there are inadequacies in the existing machinery for determining production costs and of course if you cannot determine production costs, you have great difficulty in determining support levels. The second point concerns the contentious matter of the licensing of imports. The minister will be aware of a recent report by the Agricultural Marketing Society, a very well constructed and documented report, I might add, on the possible implications for the Island's agriculture as a result of the Single European Market. In this report a strong case is made for looking at further licensing of certain imports, a matter which I feel should be looked at in some depth to see if any relief is forthcoming. There is also the contentious matter of grading, and the hon. member for North Douglas, Mrs. Delaney, has referred to this today in the context of cattle going off the Island. Well this in a way goes to the root of that problem, but it is being examined; I know the minister is taking some steps to try to improve that situation and so I will not expand on it further here today. Housing — I am sure the Minister for Local Government and the Environment will be surprised that another member should speak on the subject of housing. I am sure he is already fairly exasperated by the coverage which the subject has received. But as far as I am concerned I feel that his department, under the minister's leadership, is doing a good job of expediting the problem of house building and, although I am sure we can always do a bit more, I think the department are to be commended for what they have done in such a short period of time. But on the periphery of that, and indeed very fundamental to the problem, is the matter of house purchase or the House Purchase Scheme, and this of course is a matter for my good friend the Minister for the Treasury. An amendment to the scheme is to come forward at this sitting of Tynwald and hon. members, I am sure, will be acquainted with that order. We shall debate then the substance of that order, but there are one or two points relating to it which I would make in the context of this speech. First of all for the past six months we have had some £3 million sitting on the shelf because during the first half of this year there has been no real take-up of that scheme I think that is to be regretted when there are so many people wanting homes. But I am afraid it does not stop there; there may well be worse to come, because I fear that the amended scheme which is to come forward will not help the situation at all I find the scheme very unsatisfactory. Putting it in a nutshell, it is questionable how many first-time home buyers within the approved income category can enter the housing market at £40,000 today, and yet anything less than that would probably

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T175 be a millstone around their necks. Specifically the low-start interest rates, which are attractive, I fear that they are going to lead to very major problems for the persons who take up or would be taking up the benefits of this amended scheme in five years' time. We can simply look at it this way: We are talking of an approved income group in the lower end of the wage scale. If we have a person that is taking out a £40,000 mortgage over 25 years, at the end of the honeymoon period he is going to have a jump of some £900 per year in his payments. That is on the existing percentages in this draft order. Now, with due respect, I think there are very few people who are going to have the likehood, in this income bracket, of that sort of jump in their salary, and we are going to have people who will be led into this scheme, into these murky waters, and end up over their heads. Of course it may be that the Treasury officials, who, I am sure, always seek to help these people, would be looking at the individual circumstances and pointing out that in their particular case this scheme would not fit their requirements because they could not really look forward to meeting that sort of commitment later on. But in that case, of course, in effect the applicants would be rejected and so again the scheme is pointless; either way the scheme is not going to be of any real help. Now I know the Chief Minister has said previously when I raised this that even if the scheme helps just one or two people it is worthwhile, and I would not quarrel with the Chief Minister's contention there at all; anything we can do to help, whatever small number, must be worthwhile. But surely something else is needed; this alone cannot carry forward, cannot meet the need. That is the point which I am making: what is the real value of this scheme? We must look for something else. I suspect that this scheme, this amended scheme which is to come forward, is based on the false premise that low pay is a transitional problem, and, if so, I would commend to the Minister for the Treasury the recent House of Commons research paper on this matter of low pay which clearly establishes that the bulk of people in low-paid occupations are unlikely to move upwards. Your Excellency, hon. members, I remain of the view that a split equity scheme is what is called for in the present circumstances and I do not see the proposed amendments to Governments's House Purchase scheme as being of substantial benefit to very many people. A further point on housing, Your Excellency, a problem which has manifested itself in the last three months is the plight of home owners caught by the recent dramatic rise in interest rates. I have a constituent, a married man with four children, on a modest salary whose monthly mortgage payments have increased in this period, in this short period, from £186 to £247, and that is on a modest mortgage of less than £25,000. Now with many mortgages you can extend the time-span, but for mortgages, so I am advised, for mortgages which are tied to insurance policies, endowment policies, you do not have that option. You would have an option of either cashing in the policy and accepting a loss on that and taking out a fresh policy, a fresh mortgage, or, alternatively, I suppose, you have the option of selling your house and going on the public housing list, and regrettably it is the latter which appears to be facing my constituent.

Mr. Delaney: How long has he had the mortgage?

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T176 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

Mr. Quine: About three years.

Mr. Cannan: From Government?

Mr. Quine: No, no, I said an endowment insurance policy I do not think we issue them. Now if I could just now come to the matter of planning, I am sure the minister knows my views on this, and I just want to make two points very briefly because there has been certain reference to my views on this matter, and that is this. I have no quarrel at all with the members who have to carry this heavy and very unpleasant burden of the Planning Committee and the contact I have had with them, they have always been courteous and helpful I have no quarrel with that at all. I just want to make it clear that my quarrel is with the system I remain of the view that the system, the planning procedures, are not what they should be. I have not been persuaded, in the same way as the hon. Minister for Industry, Mr May, has been persuaded, in the light of experience that this is a better system, that this is a good system. I have not been persuaded that is the case at all. But then perhaps, Your Excellency, I have not been elevated to Executive Council.

Mr. May: I did not say I was persuaded.

Mr. Quine: I feel, Your Excellency, and I do recollect that when we debated this new arrangement almost a year ago now the minister did say that we would have to take a look at it in a year or so's time and see how it was functioning, and all I would wish to say is I think we do need, we do need to take a close look, this hon. Court does require to take a close look at the whole planning procedures once again and either we will ratify them or we will change them. But I cannot accept that they are satisfactory when I find there is such disillusionment outside about planning matters. To my way of thinking something is wrong in that situation, and I cannot accept that a system which has an appeal process built in to the department is a just system. It may be just in its application but it cannot be just in its perspective, it will not be seen to be fair, and I will just leave it there; I will not go into my own views on how the structure should be, but I know the hon. Minister for Local Government is well aware of my views on that. It is apparent from this report, Your Excellency, that there have been some moves to strengthen the management and administration of Government and I think some good moves, and notably the acceptance of the need for a Chief Secretary. There has been some dispute here today as to whether his role is correct or otherwise, and personally I would like to see it cast in a more authoritative role, but I have no quarrel, we must walk before we can run, and I look forward eagerly to his arrival and to, hopefully, receiving the benefit of his advice and experience. So I welcome that and certain other measures which have taken place. To date only three of the four Standing Committees of Executive Council have been formed and I am not quite sure when the fourth will be coming into effect. But already there are indications that these Standing Committees are creating a bottleneck, and this must not be allowed to happen. I can understand, of course, the need for ministerial direction of these Standing Committees, for ministerial input for these Standing Committees, but if the non-

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T177

availability of ministers is going to mean that these committees cannot progress their work at the pace at which it should be progressed, then clearly the system is inadequate and we must look for some alternative means of doing this. It may be that we have to fall back more frequently on Standing Committees of this hon. Court, and some would view that as a retrorade step. But what matters most is that the business is transacted efficiently and expeditiously. I am particularly concerned at the prospect of the 1992 matter and the way that it is being progressed. I know that it is now in the hands of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and External Relations but I cannot help wondering whether this is really the body to carry it forward. I do not find much comfort from the Minister for the Treasury's explanation of the situation. I wholly accept of course that our position in relation to the United Kingdom and E.E.C. matters, that we are a subordinate element, I wholly accept that, but what I cannot accept, and what I understood from the minister, is that really we cannot make the running on this, we really have to sort of mark time and see what comes from the United Kingdom. That I cannot accept. I feel that we surely, we must look at our own position, we must determine what is best for us, what is in our best interests, and then how we can best achieve that and put this forward ourselves. We must carry the momentum and the initiative. I think it is quite wrong that we should sit back and do nothing; we must work, as I said, through the Foreign Office, we understand that, but we must not freewheel. The independent review of the Civil Service has produced a most valuable report and I trust it will be adopted and implemented as expeditously as possible. I am afraid there is quite a bit of misunderstanding as to what this report is all about. Several times today it has been referred to in the context of salaries and again, more recently, in terms of staffing. It is neither of these things. It is a grading report, it is a report to determine the appropriate grades for positions within the different departments; it is not concerned with salaries, and I think if we can understand that, if we can grasp that, we will have a better idea of where this report takes us. I think what has happened and is to be regretted is that recruitment and retention problems in the Civil Service, fired by the inordinate economic acceleration, has confused the issues of grading and conditions and salaries. That is unfortunate. Whether it could have been anticipated I am not sure, but it is unfortunate that these two things have come together because that is really what has fouled the path. But I trust, nonetheless, that the accent will remain on putting in place a structure • with appropriate gradings and that, in doing so, personalities will not influence these decisions. The non-staffing recomendations referred to in this policy report, in this review report, are also of major importance, and I note that they have gone again to a Standing Committee for to be progressed. I would commend members to take a close look at those proposals. I think there are many good proposals which are not concerned with staffing, with grading, but are concerned with the structure of Government and, while they may not be for immediate implementation, they are worthy of serious consideration and for advancing as expeditiously as we can. The Civil Service, well the Civil Service has come in for quite a bit of attention here today, and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission of course, quite properly, has spoken on this matter, and I do not wish to repeat all that he has said but there are one or two points I would make.

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T178 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

The Civil Service, the problem of morale in the Civil Service is not just a mattes` of salaries and conditions. It is also a matter of its public image and how it is treated by its employer. Of course there will be a case for adjustment of salaries; that is an on-going process. But if we have a situation where the Civil Service is going to be undermined by misinformed statements in this hon. Court, then I do not see how you can expect to have any reasonable degree of morale in the Civil Service. Mr. Gilbey put it very well when he said, would we expect directors of a firm to stand up in public and criticise their staff? I think it is wholly unacceptable and all the more so if it flows from ministerial mouths. Your Excellency, the Chief Minister's report amply illustrates that much milk and honey is flowing our way, and we are all pleased for that, so much so, in places, that it is causing a degree of indigestion. I am simply pointing out here today that it could and should have been more aptly regulated and, as I have said, even within Government, within this report, we have an example of how that can be done. Much has been achieved and for those who have contributed in achieving that, I offer them my heartiest congratulations and I wish them all success in maintaining that momentum, but we must regulate it at a pace which is digestible. Unfortunately many of our citizens have been by-passed or, some would say, pushed aside, left behind, penalised. Steps must be taken to correct that situation and until that is done it is no use us pretending that we are committed to a prosperous and caring society; it will continue to have a hollow ring. Your Excellency, I would just conclude by saying I support both these amendments, I think I mentioned that earlier, and I would commend them for hon. members' support. Thank you.

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, I am very conscious of the late hour now and I will not go over all the ground that has been discussed over the last couple of days. My original view of this debate was in fact that Executive Council has a listening brief during this debate to hear in fact the individual members' views on the various policies being pursued by Government, rather than making any contribution ourselves. But I would just like to come in on a very narrow point, Your Excellency, of my own department as it is something which I am concerned about, that, by my reckoning, 27 people have spoken during this debate. With the exception of possibly two or three virtually no mention of tourism has been brought up at all. Now this can be taken either one of two ways, that either they are very satisfied with the policies which are being pursued at the moment, or, as I tend to suspect, a general disinterest in what happens to tourism. This impression, Your Excellency, that Tynwald may be disinterested in the future of tourism, is a very dangerous one but it is one which is outside of this Court, through the media through the average man in the street, that tourism in fact in the Isle of Man is finished and therefore Government should no longer concern itself with it. Members during this debate have stressed on a number of occasions the need to ensure that the financial benefits, the prosperity that we are enjoying at the moment, is spread right throughout this Island. Now I would remind hon. members, Your Excellency, that the tourist industry, in the broader sense, represents a very large proportion of this Island. There are in the region of 2,000 jobs involved in

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T179 this industry and if we are to allow this what has been a traditional industry of the Isle of Man to disappear it will be building up a very serious problem for future Governments. The majority of people working in this acknowledged low-paid industry are ones who perhaps are not qualified for alternative jobs very easily and ones which, if in fact are denied employment within that particular industry, will probably find themselves going straight onto the dole. I would ask hon. members to bear this in mind, that if in fact you are supporting Executive Council's strategy to ensure the spread of wealth throughout the Island, please do not forget that tourism still plays a very important part in the employment structure of the Isle of Man. The point that really brought me to my feet, Your Excellency, was made earlier on today by Mr. Speaker, and I accept entirely the context that it was brought forward in, but he, I believe mentioned that the industry was perhaps beyond revival. The general opinion, I think, tends to be outside that the industry is in a period of terminal decline. I would challenge that, Your Excellency, and say that not only is the rest of the economy booming, but there are stirrings now within the tourist industry, in spite of outward appearances. Far from being in a period of terminal decline, the tourist industry is in fact going through a period of transition. Very, very radical changes have taken place to the face of traditional British tourism and the Isle of Man has not escaped that problem. The traditional resorts which we have considered ourselves to be in competition with have been going through exactly the same problem and in fact at this very moment are experiencing exactly the same problems as the Isle of Man is. We are not in isolation in this matter. We are in fact, I believe, now starting to come through the worst of the decline in tourism. There is most definitely, as a number of members and I think again Mr. Speaker mentioned and the hon. member for Onchan, there is a change away from the traditional form of tourism in Britain to a more specialised form and the Island now is becoming very well placed to capitalise on this. Some statistics, Your Excellency, which were given to me only this week bears out the rationalisation programme which is taking place. Between 1984 and 1987 the number of bedrooms on the Island fell by 23 per cent., the number of guesthouse bedrooms fell by 30 per cent. A lot of the redundant hotel stock is leaving the industry and being converted into either permanent accommodation or accommodation for the finance sector. But the most interesting statistic which was given to me, which I had not appreciated myself at the time, was that the Isle of Man now has an estimated 25 per cent. of all-serviced accommodation in en suite facilities. Now that is amongst the highest level of en suite facilities of any resort in the British Isles and we are in fact ahead of Blackpool, who again in some quarters like to think of as being the competition. The rationalisation programme of the Tourist Board, going back for a number of years and it is not simply one that we have adopted ourselves, is now, I believe, starting to bear fruit. We are now providing the sort of accommodation which the modern tourist is looking for, and I believe any hon. member taking a walk along the promenade and going into these hotels which have modernised, which have produced en suite facilities, they will find that virtually every single hotel has had a very good season this year and are very delighted with their profit margins. In fact we do not have enough of en suite facilities; they are sold out well in advance. So, Your Excellency, the rationalisation programme is taking place. As a result

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T180 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 of this we will find in time that those employed within the industry will benefit from higher wages in the same way as manufacturing has done, but I would ask hon. members, please do not forget the tourist industry. We have heard a lot of talk about improving the position of factory workers, especially in the agricultural industry which again is perhaps going through a similar period, perhaps not quite as advanced as the tourist industry but the problems are very similar. What we do need Your Excellency, is an on-going policy of investment, investment by Government and, more importantly, then investment by the private sector, and I believe Government has paved the way very successfully over the last few years; where the private sector perhaps has been nervous and cautious about investing Government has continued to show its faith in the tourist industry, and it is now bearing fruit and it is now in fact leading the private industry to do its own investing in the industry. We only need to look along Douglas promenade again to see the amount of money, many millions of pounds in fact, which this last year have gone into a number of our hotels. Most of it has been completely free of any Government assistance, it is all private sector money which is going into this, which has to be a declaration of confidence in the future. What we are lacking, Your Excellency, above all at the moment, surprisingly, is not top quality hotel accommodation, although that obviously is still near the top of our priorities, our main problem is the absence of good quality amenity infrastructure on the Island, and this has been made very clear to us during both the University of Surrey review which was carried out earlier on last year for us and the Torkildsen Pickering report on the sports facilities on the Island. We have fallen dangerously far behind the United Kingdom and even further in fact behind Continental Europe in our standard of provision of leisure facilities, both for the local community and for our tourists, and it is in that light, Your Excellency, that I strongly urge those people who have expressed doubts about the building of the new Aqua Centre and indeed the development of a national sports centre. The question has been posed by one or two members that, whilst it may be desirable, is it essential? And I would argue back, Your Excellency, we need to look on this as more than simply the provision of a leisure facility. The tourist industry needs investment in its infrastructure in exactly the same way as the Industry Board does, as the finance industry does. Leisure facilities of this nature are what we in the industry would consider essential to the long-term welfare of the industry. It is not simply a luxury stuck on Douglas promenade to play around with, and we must not lose sight of that fact. If we do not lead the way in the provision of leisure facilities now, in the same manner as we led in the provision of refurbishment investment in the hotels, we will find in the very near future that the industry could well be in very serious trouble. I think we are doing very well. The proposals which are being put forward at the moment for supporting the Aqua Centre, and indeed the phased development of the sports centre, I think give us a great opportunity to capitalise on three or four years down the road and will lead us to a very healthy industry much smaller perhaps than we have been used to, there may well be fewer overall people coming to the Island, but at the end of the day those who are left in the industry will be far more profitable and the Island generally will be financially much better off for it. We need to be aware, Your Excellency, that the hotel industry is not the sum total of the industry. The loss of the tourist industry will have a devastating effect

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T181 on the shopping facilities, a great deal of the leisure infrastructure, a great deal of the carrier business which is brought to the Island; it will mean curtailed shipping services, curtailed air services to the Island. We cannot lose sight of that fact. Success is showing its way through in non-hotel areas as well. My own department, for example, has made, I believe, quite an amazing success with Summerland. This year we budgeted for a loss of £120,000; so far we are showing a profit of £30,000. I think, considering the chequered history of Summerland over the last few years, ten years perhaps, we have done extremely well, but it is an indication of what can be done with good management of the facilities that we have. The Aquadrome has seen a 20,000 increase in customers this year; the railways, the steam railway is showing a 14 per cent. increase in passengers this summer; there has been an increase in the Manx Electric Railway. There is a success story in the making, Your Excellency, in the tourist industry and we should not decry that, we should be building it up and lending our support to it, it is most important. We have heard a great deal about morale and I agree with every word that the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Quine, has said about supporting the morale of the Civil Service, but it is important that the right message goes out from this hon. Court to the industry; their morale is important as well. If we want them to carry forward now their proposals for re-investment for the future, to give them confidence that there is a future, we have to make the right sounds, I think, to ensure that confidence bears fruit. Your Excellency, just changing tack slightly and wearing another hat that I have, a number of comments were made on the activities of the Sports Council. Now as Chairman of the Sports Council I am well aware of the situation mentioned by Mr. Speaker. On the face of it, it would seem to be a miserly offer on the part of the Sports Council in giving £50 to the Laxey snooker player to go to New Zealand, but that has to be borne in the context of the fact that this particular gentleman has had a considerable amount of support from the Sports Council over the last year for other events he has attended; many hundreds of pounds in fact have gone to this particular snooker player. We at the Sports Council have a very limited budget. We do our very best to support all the potentially successful sports people on the Island, but we have a limit, we do not have a bottomless purse, and we have to draw the line somewhere. If in fact we were to increase, especially at this time of the year, our support to one person it is going to mean taking support away from someone, else and that we are very loathe to do, bearing in mind the fact that this particular gentleman has had considerable support from us in the past. Again, on Mr. Quirk's point about financial support for groups travelling off the Island, we do spend a great proportion of our funding on supporting local athletes as individuals and as groups leaving the Isle of Man. There is obviously a limit again on the amount of money we have available for that, and obviously we would very much like to see an increase in allowance in that area, but this, is also one particular area I think where the private sector has a role to play. Manx Airlines has a sports scholarship which it grants to six athletes, six sports people every year, which enables them to have assisted travel by air off the Island. Now this is very generous and very useful for a lot of our sports people, but it needs to be extended. We have heard time and time again how wealthy the Isle of Man is at the moment, the institutions which are moving in here with a great deal of money. I believe that

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T182 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 this is an area we should be looking at to tap their resources and their goodwill to give additional support to our young people. It is most important, I think, that not only do we talk about providing a sports centre, a running track and these various other things, we have to support the individuals as well and we must not lose sight of the fact that, although we are a small Island, we have sports people of very high calibre living here. Given the right facilities, given the right support, they can match anything that Britain can produce; they have done it in the past, and I believe they can do it again with the right co-ordinated policy of facilities and financial support. There is also, as the hon. member has said, an additional attraction from the Tourist Board's point of view in supporting this activity in so far as we do believe this is another important plank in the future policy of the Tourist Board, that once the sports facilities are in place here we will be very well positioned to attract quite considerable numbers of sports people on a 52-week a year basis from off the Island to our shores to compete against our own local people, which in turn will give an added boost to our visiting industry. So, Your Excellency, I do not intend to be very lengthy today. I would like to finish with one final observation, or request really. In the two years that I have been Minister of Tourism, and I really am also repeating what has been mentioned by two other members this morning, as far as I can recall, only one single member has actually come to the department with proposals and suggestions for the Tourist Board. There does seem to be a lack of understanding of what the Tourist Board is trying to do from time to time and what its policies are, and I would welcome hon. members, if they do have suggestions, if they do wish to find out further information, to either come and see me or come down to the department and talk with my officials to give them a clearer picture. I find it very disappointing, Your Excellency, that more constructive suggestions have not been made today, but again I would hope members will take the opportunity to come down and talk to my officials if they have anything constructive to add to what we are doing.

The Governor: I call on the Chief Minister to reply.

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, hon. members, I do not quite know where to begin. With a debate that has been as wide ranging as this one it is quite difficult to construct a detailed reply, so I am going to attempt a reply in broad terms, but I think a lot of important issues have been raised, Your Excellency, and I would be wrong just to brush them aside and say 'We will take note of what has been said and you will hear about it in due course'. Firstly, Your Excellency, could I acknowledge those members who have made gestures of support to me as an individual and the role I am playing as Chief Minister, and I am pleased to acknowledge those, and I do not do so in a sort of condescending back-slapping way; I believe that those gestures of support were made for the establishment of the role of Chief Minister and the way that it is evolving. It is certainly not an easy role, Your Excellency, and no reason why it should be. I did not expect it to be easy. Can I say that members must have known my personal and political nature when I was elected and I do not think, whatever you wish me to do, that I can do very much about changing that. If I am going to continue to do this job, then I have just got to do it in my own way. What has been said, though will not fall on stony ground. • Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T183

As far as the members of the Executive Council, the Council of Ministers, as it is becoming more popularly known, they certainly do have a responsibility to me and I know that they understand that. They also have a responsibility for their own area of Government, and I do not think that any of should forget that they have a responsibility also to their constituents. We were all elected on different manifestos and we all represent a wide cross-section of political views, and also, just as important probably, quite a lot of differences in the way we approach our problems and the way we react to criticism. . I think from time to time there are bound to be pressures and there are bound to be personal clashes between ministers as individuals. I obviously have to endeavour to minimise those clashes and we have to, I think, sort out our differences, as far as we can behind closed doors, round the forum, if you like, of the debating table rather than through the popular Press. But I have to say that, by and large, members of Council have worked well together, we have worked as a team, and I would certainly thank them for that. We do and I am committed to follow a consensus-type approach. I do not have any party support and I must say I do not want a party support, although I have to say that life would be a heck of a lot easier if I knew that the decisions we were making in Executive Council were bound to be carried on the Floor of this House by a majority of workers all working together, of course it would be easier, but it would not be, I am certain, in the interests of the Isle of Man and the way it is going to go in the future. I think I have two examples that I can just pose at this moment of difficulties that face me, looking for a consensus way forward, and they are quite far off. One is the Redundancy Bill and Executive Council were asked by Tynwald, a resolution of Tynwald, to produce a Redundancy Bill for debate by the House of Keys. I made my views quite clear at the time it was debated in the Keys, but I have concerns about redundancy legislation, (Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.) I have concerns about the effect of that legislation, but, nevertheless, Executive Council were told to produce legislation. Now we are going to produce that legislation, we are committed to it. I know the majority of members of my council support redundancy legislation. If anybody thinks that I am daft enough to say to council, 'I don't agree with redundancy legislation, do not let us do it' and fly in the face of Tynwald and the majority of my members, it just will not work hon. members, so we have to keep our feet fairly and squarely on the ground. That is a situation that I have to come to terms with. We have another one, another one that is going to be debated later on on this Agenda, and that is the resolution from the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Quine: free transport for schoolchildren. Tynwald voted in support of that principle some time ago and we in Executive Council were committed to take it back to look at it, which we did, and we decided it was an opportunity to proceed with it. We are faced with that resolution again and nothing tells me that a number of members have changed their mind, and that resolution is not likely to succeed. So Executive Council are bound, I would suggest, to take heed of the majority wishes of Tynwald. Now if it is an issue that we feel so hard and strong about as a body in Executive Council we can say, No, hon. members, we are going to do it,' and then the opportunity, I suppose, is open to the majority of Tynwald to issue a vote of no confidence, as the legislation says. Again, we in Executive Council have to consider

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T184 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 whether or not this is the sort of issue that is important enough to put our backs to the wall or our heads on the block, or whatever expression you use, and chance our arm, and I suggest that it probably is not. If the wishes of Tynwald are that we should follow this sort of line, then we are bound to take notice and, no matter who tells me to be a dictator, I do not think it is going to get me out of that particular problem. So I think we have got to have an appreciation of the difficulties that face not only me and the Council of Ministers but members as well, and what we have to do, and what I have to do is find a way through these different issues that we are being faced with. Your Excellency, perhaps it would...Well whether it is right or wrong I am going to do it. We have just been talking about the evolving of the Chief Minister, the Council of Ministers, and can I say now that I would just like to record the appreciation that I have to the staff that we have in our office. It is less than two years ago and I had one member of staff second to me, a very valuable member of staff, who did a good job. Since that time we have built up an office, a staff complement, and I want to thank them for the way that they themselves have assisted in that establishment. I am absolutely certain that they will assist me to fulfil my responsibilities to hon. members and to this Island. I am not going to refer to any individual speech expect to the first contribution we had yesterday morning, well yesterday afternoon, and that was the contribution from the hon. member for Peel Mrs. Hannan, and I found that speech, I have to say, terribly disappointing. I found it destructive — she pointed out all the difficulties — we have — she did not come up with one constructive comment or answer, she told us about the sewers and the roads in Peel and the state they were in. What she did not say was that a very short time ago they were the responsibility of the town commissioners of which she was a member; it is only since Government has taken over financial responsibility for the sewers — they are still owned by the local authority — and full responsibility for the roads that improvements have started to be made. I like Peel, Your Excellency. (Members: Hear, hear.) I think it is an interesting town and I wish to see it advance and I wish to see it projected. I do not wish to see its character destroyed. I think it would be impractical and foolish to think that we should register all the buildings in it as important architecturally or historically, because there not. But as a whole, as a unit, it is extremely attractive, it has lots of character which has got to be retained, and that is the whole essence of conservation areas, and, rather than decry conservation areas, I would suggest the hon. member ought to be supporting them, because I believe that that is going to be the future of Peel, as well as many of our other town centres, like Castletown and some parts of Douglas. And I would just say, your Excellency, that I am proud to be Manx, I am proud to be a resident of the Isle of Man. (Members: Hear, hear.) I am also proud to be British and I do not believe that to be respectful is to be servile and to be polite is in fact to be weak. (Members: Hear, hear.) In general terms, Your Excellency, I would thank members for the support that they have given to this policy document, I think it is right that we look back and relect on our progress — and progress we have had — but we also need to look forward, and in my opening remarks I made particular reference to the five areas that we have identified that are going to need a great deal of work and on-going

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T185 thought. They have been mentioned by some members during the debate; housing, population management, town and country planning, provision of public services and the sharing of prosperity. Just as far as housing is concerned, Your Excellency, can I just say that criticism was made of the housing schemes, and certainly they may be improved. But it is worth saying that in September of this year we had 30 successful applications for assistance, 13 last year; we had 21 so far in October, against 14 in the whole of October last year, the amount approved and awaiting payment is £763,000 loan and £20,000 grant. So I think we have to acknowledge that there is a substantial take-up on those improved schemes. But housing has always been a difficult one, and I suppose the last Administration is always going to be accused of not building more local authority houses. Perhaps just to put this one to bed, Your Excellency, can I say that we had limited resources to spend when I was Chairman of the L.G.B. and I thought we did exactly right, investing it in our town centre properties instead of building new at that time. (Members: Hear, hear.) Population management, I think Mr. Gilbey suggested that it was not mentioned in this Policy Review document. In fact it is, sir, it is on - Mr. Gilbey: I said it did not give much detail. Mr. Walker: It is on page 5, it is not in much detail; it seemed unnecessary to repeat the detail that we did in our consultative document. I was surprised how little comment there was on detailed population management because, like Mr. Gilbey and Mr. Quine, I think it is one of the areas we need to concentrate on. Whether we have the answer right, I know not, and I do not believe we are nearing the time where we put up the shutters. But I am absolutely certain, hon. members, that two years into this Government is time we were getting on with getting some detailed mechanism in place so that when we do need to control the population we will have the ability to do so. Town and country planning has been well versed, and there are problems and I know that after today's debate there is a wide appreciation of those problems. Houses in the countryside is a difficult one and I have often toyed with the idea of whether or not we should make people apply for a change of use if they are going to sell off a farmhouse to an ordinary residential home. Now that seems to make sense, but what do you do when a farmer who has lived all his life in a farmhouse retires and his son takes over running the farm and lives in a bungalow down the lane? Do you say to that farmer, 'Sorry mate, you are not farming any more, you have got to go and live in the town'. I do not believe you can do that, so there are difficulties. I do believe, though, that it is the politicians on the Planning Committee that have to decide on the personal cases of the applicants, and fine, we can go along with all the planning ethos that houses should not be there and so on, but the politician has to decide on the case that is made by individual applicants of whether it has merit or not, and yesterday I referred to the need for flexibility, I think I am just underlining that particular point at the moment. In the policy document we appreciate that there is a lack of detailed information and we state quite clearly that the information gathering process will improve as time goes on. What we are about is building up a satisfied community on this Island, free from over-regulation, and to do that we need to continue building our economy, diversifying its base in order to provide people with interesting and rewarding work, Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T186 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 and in order to provide Government with the income it needs to provide services for the less advantaged in our community. I am of the opinion that we should be satisfied with the progress but certainly there is no room for complacency and we have got to continue to drive the economy forward. We need measurements or we need to be able to measure our progress, and I think it would be silly at this stage to look further afield than the United Kingdom to do that. There are so many areas within our community that we look to the U.K. to get the same level of support, to pay the same level of wages and so on, and I think at this stage of the game it would be silly to look further than the United Kingdom to come up with yardsticks to measure our progress. When we come up to the United Kingdom, and I believe we can do that, then we should be looking further afield. Just a word on constitutional issues, Your Excellency, we have made some points in the policy document. I do believe the development of Executive Council is something that we have to give serious consideration to, into an executive body rather than just an advisory one. We have over a period of time got to develop more self-determination/autonomy by taking advantage of opportunities they open themselves to us, and obviously making advantages when we see them or making opportunities when there is a possibility of doing so. But we have also got to build up a relationship with our counterparts in the United Kingdom of understanding and respect, and I believe that, that is the sort of business that we have been about. As far as the Secretariat of Executive Council goes, there has been some criticism that perhaps the salary levels that have been promoted for the new Chief Secretary are not large enough. All I can say, Your Excellency, is that we did take advice on this, that 'Grade 5 is a senior policy grade dealing with issues of principle, the highest complexity often with political implications. Grade 5 posts control and direct major units of work in the United Kingdom regional organisations, research establishments and so on'. So there was an exercise carried out to determine that grading it was not a figure just plucked from the air. It remains to be seen, I think, whether or not it was the right grade. I think also there is just one other matter I would mention when on our constitutional side, if you like; it is a matter touched on by Mr. Speaker in a way. I do believe that we have to get away from the Isle of Man, we have to take part in international forums, even if there are travelling expenses and so on because of that I do not think we should be afraid of that, it is costly, but it is an effective way in fact of promoting the Island, and I do believe that we should send our young people abroad to develop their talents, and when we have people in our community who have the makings of people who can develop into the top strata of sport and so on, then we should be prepared to invest in them, and in fact it is a very good way, I would suggest, of promoting the Isle of Man. Mention was made, Your Excellency, about our economic base and what we are doing to expand it, and I suppose we assume that the finance sector is there. It is worthwhile, I think, recognising that Treasury have in fact set out consciously to broaden the base of the finance sector, and as regards banking, we look for U.K. banks, European banks, Northern American banks, with some success. There is still room for a wider spread; we have got private banks, merchant banks and the conventional banks, so it is well spread. As far as insurance is concerned, we have life insurance, ordinary insurance, captive insurance and so on, and we have our

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T187

Shipping Register, our management companies, there are now, I believe, training opportunities that we should grasp along with that Shipping Register and those ship management proposals. So I think what I am saying is we are alert to the need to spread this base and we are working at it. As far as manufacturing is concerned, the hon. member Mr. May was absolutely right when he said that we have now to enter into a different sort of promotion and pull back from the straightforward selling of the Isle of Man as a place to set up in business. We are doing that, and obviously some time ago when the interest in the Isle of Man was generated to such an extent that it was not necessary to carry on advertising the Island, that was in fact pulled back as well. So Government did not go all out to overheat the economy, it did in fact pull back from its promotional activities to try and cool down the interest on the Island. ', I think hon. members will be pleased and, well, I was surprised at the progress the Freeport is making and the interest there is in that, and I think in due course when opportunities are with members to have a look they will be appreciative of what they find there. We are going to have 'high tech'., high reputation industries and it is working, and the atmosphere and the way the whole Freeport is being developed is something that I never thought possible for an industrial estate, and I hope in due course members will take an opportunity to have a look down there and that is just one aspect of the diversification that is having to happen within our manufacturing centre. Just a word about tourism, if I may, Your Excellency, as far as I am concerned it is an extremely important section of our economy and I do not think that we should ignore it; it is one of our traditional industries, it brings in new money into our community. I believe it is complementary to our newer industries of finance and manufacturing because people do come over on business, if we can persuade them to stay a little bit longer, a weekend or a few days, and bring their wife or their girlfriend or whoever it is to enjoy what we have in the Isle of Man, I think it is something we have to build on. But it is going to be different from the industry we saw and the Island enjoyed in the past, and I think the sooner that is recognised the better, and the sooner we stop looking at our arrivals and seeing that they have dropped from last year and think we have got a disaster because the numbers have gone down again, the better it will be. We probably have not reached the floor yet as far as numbers are concerned and I do believe that we should stop using it as a yardstick. 111 I also think, and whether or not Mr. Speaker was right when he was suggesting that tourism was being inhibited by the communications, the sea communications, between the Island and the United Kingdom, I would suggest the future of our tourist industry is going to be serviced by the air, and I do not believe people any more will put up with four hours of boat journey to come on holiday when they can get on a plane in Manchester and within an hour and a half or something be in Spain or wherever. They are going to look to us to provide that same sort of facility, and I believe that we can do it. We had the first, I think, notice of this from Mr. Callin, the hon. member for Council, when he suggested that the airport was going to stay open for longer hours. This will give opportunities for back-to-back charters and that sort of thing at times when aircraft are available and I think it is an area we should be looking very hard at. The future economic generators and 'what are they?' is a question that was posed

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T188 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 by a number of members, and I do not know them all but I know some of them, Your Excellency, some of the ones that have been looked at in some depth. There are opportunities open to this Island with the deregulation of radio telegraphy in the United Kingdom. There is the possible development of a film industry on the Isle of Man. There is the development of the Island as a base for T.V. video productions and marketing. We do have the development of fish farming and processing. We do have the development of the Island as a seat of learning and the evolving of the College of Further Education and its tie-up with the United Kingdom universities. We do have development of areas of specialisation within our traditional industries, and I do not think we should be blind to the fact that with our rose growing industry we have a world-acknowledged expert in that field. I think as far as aquaculture is concerned we have world-acknowledged experts resident on this Island and I think we need to develop and use their brains and resources for the Island's benefit, and for their own benefits obviously. `What do we do if there is a downturn in the economy?' is a question which I think a number of members asked, and I suppose that there is no absolute defence at all against an international slump; if there were, every country would be in on it. But what we can do is build up our reserves so that services can be sustained, and when my hon. colleague says, 'Where do you get £50 million from? Is it enough?' all I can say is about £50 million is that we believe it is practical and attainable and it is a figure that as a target we should aim for. We probably never have enough in returns and when we get to £50 million we will be looking to develop it further. The best defence of all of course is to build a strong, vigorous and professionally broadly based economy, which is what we are trying to do to weather any future recessions. We have to try and avoid future potential problems, such as having too many unskilled workers in our community, and this is one that we faced five years ago, and I think, well, it certainly surprised me the way it happened, and we have to try and avoid unnecessary continuing Government expenditures which may be sustainable in times of prosperity but which will become millstones round Government's neck if a recession does happen, and obviously we have to stockpile Government schemes for release onto the market if the construction industry is in need of them and needs to be sustained. As far as our capital projects are concerned, Your Excellency, I would just have a word on the Aqualeisure Centre and say to hon. members that I do not believe that a rectangular Swimming Pool in Douglas will serve the needs of the Douglas community in the Isle of Man, (A Member: Hear, hear.) I really do not. As far as I am concerned, it is the rectangular part of the project that could be taken out if we were able to keep the fun waters, but I have been persuaded that in fact that is impractical and the savings from doing that would be minimal anyway. But what we do need is to build up the infrastructure on the Island, not only for our tourists, but, probably more importantly, for us, for the residents of the Isle of Man, (Members: Hear, hear.) to enjoy. Certainly it will have a spin-off as regards the tourists and it will be a wet weather facility. But what does a family in the Isle of Man, a family with young children, three, five, seven-year olds, do at half-term in November or December or January or February? Not very much, and if those families are looking for somewhere to go on a party or a picnic in the winter months: nowhere. I believe we have to look

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOI3ER, 1988 T189 to our laurels and provide that sort of infrastructure. We have got the Manx Museum, we have got the development of the castles, we have got Cregneash, we have got the Grove Museum — they apply to some of the people for some of the time, but people who are here for six or seven days need something else, and I really believe, hon. members, that we have got to think in terms of an Aqualeisure Centre, a fun area, rather than a rectangular swimming pool for the competition swimmers who can get that facility in Ramsey and Castletown at this moment in time. As regards the sports centre, I am fully in favour of it; I think that principle as far as I am concerned is established. Where it needs to be I have certainly not decided. I understand absolutely the reasons for siting it in Douglas or near Douglas. I under- stand some of the possibilities of siting it in St. John's: certainly it is an area of Government land that we own, certainly there is plenty of space and it is flat so there are no massive construction costs in earth-moving. On the other hand, if we are going to make the best use of Government resources, then it is probable that the siting needs to be by the large centre of population, (Members: Hear, hear.) especially if it is going to be used by our schoolchildren and if we are going to avoid the need of duplicating amenities at the College of Further Education and at some of the Douglas schools. (Mr. Delaney: Divide!) Laughter)

Mr. Walker: There are certainly pros and cons for both and I think it is right that we look in depth at that. But the principle of a sports centre is one that I go along with. Obviously it cannot be provided tomorrow, it has to be done over a long period of time, and involve as many people as is possible. It was said earlier on that investment, Government investment should be spread over the whole Island, and I agree with that and would say that that could also include Pulrose.

Mr. Duggan: We will be watching! Mr. Brown: The incinerator! (Laughter) Mr. Walker: The legislative programme, Your Excellency, we have outlined what legislation we would like to see come forward to the House of Keys; we have identified four Bills only as priorities at this stage and I think we have spelled out the reasons for that in the report. My hon. colleague makes flippant remarks about the Bee-Keeping Bill. Can I just say, Your Excellency, it is very easy to keep these issues to the back, but if disease is imported and wipes out our bee colonies, I wonder who will be the first to shout at us for not protecting the ecology of the Isle of Man. So it is important. The Public Health Bill is important. We got that one going when we were with the Local Government Board. What we have not done is given it a priority over the four Bills that we have mentioned. The Public Health Bill is a large Bill, it is going to take some time to debate in the House of Keys, and I think it would be wrong to put it before the four Bills that we have identified as having priority, but that does not mean to say that we consider it to be unimportant, and I hope that suggestion was not really meant. As far as landlord and tenant legislation goes, I would just remind hon. members that in fact that is in front of the House of Keys at the moment and there is a committee of the Keys sitting on it and looking at it.

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T190 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

The Money Lenders Bill was mentioned by the hon. member Mrs. Delaney. I find there was an assurance in October given to the Department of Consumer Affairs. I am not certain what has happened to the Bill but we give the assurance that we will certainly look it out and see if we can bring it forward. The less privileged and elderly in our community, Your Excellency, of course need looking after and supporting. I have to say that I am proud of what we have done so far and certainly not ashamed of it. Of course we could do more and we will do more as resources and opportunities become available. I think we should recognise that the provision of better services in the health and social services field are generally appreciated and welcomed and used by the older and less privileged people in our society and so the investment we make in those particular areas of Government, I believe, is in one way invested towards our elderly and less fortunate within our community. As far as provision for the disabled is concerned, Your Excellency — and I do not think this was mentioned by any member but we have made mention of it in the document — provision for the disabled is something that we would like the community of the Isle of Man to think about automatically, not have to be reminded about. I have welcomed the attitude of the architects and developers who, after a number of reminders in the early days to install disabled facilities, now do it automatically, and I think that sort of thinking ought to be taken on by a wider section of our community. As far as the amendments are concerned, Mr Speaker, I would ask members not to support them, to accept that the development of policy and detailed planning is something that is being worked on, something that is evolving. We have now for the first time got our staffing complement together, apart from the Chief Secretary, that is, who will be a key person in it. We say in our document that we are going to improve it from year to year. In March and April next year we will have our estimates debate and the Budget and very soon after that I will be back here in October with our next policy statement. So I would ask members to have some faith in us that we are going to get it right, show us your support and support the resolution as it is written on the Agenda Paper today. (Members: Hear, hear.) Thank you, Your Excellency.

The Governor: Well now, hon. members, we have two amendments to consider. In the normal way I would offer Mr. Irving's first and Mr. Cain's second, but because Mr. Cain's is the severer of the two in two respects I think it is sensible to take Mr. Cain's first, so that if that is accepted there is no point in voting on the second one; if it is rejected there is great point in voting on the second one, and I hope you will agree, hon. members. So first of all I put to you the amendment moved by Mr. Cain, seconded by the hon. Mr. Speaker and I would ask all hon. members in favour of that amendment to say aye; those against to say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys -

For: Messrs. Gilbey, Quine, Dr. Orme, Mr. Corrin, Mrs. Delaney, Mr. Cain, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Leventhorpe and the Speaker — 9

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T191

Against: Messrs. Cannan, North, Walker, Brown, May, Duggan, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Kneale, Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Gelling, Karran and L.R. Cretney — 15

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with nine votes being cast in favour and 15 votes against.

In the Council -

For: Nil

Against: Messrs. Lowey, Radcliffe, Quirk, Barton, Callin, Irving, Luft and the President of the Council — 8

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council no votes cast in favour, eight votes cast against, the first amendment therefore fails to carry.

I now put to you the second amendment, that of Mr. Irving, seconded by Mr. Gilbey:

Add the words - "and asks that a cohesive document which clearly sets out the means whereby the central policy objective of the Government, as detailed on page 1, be prepared and laid before Tynwald, on the understanding that the policies contained therein will have to be adapted and modified from time to time to suit changing circumstances.".

Would hon. members in favour of that amendment say aye; those against say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys -

For: Messrs. Gilbey, Quine, Dr. Orme, Mrs. Delaney, Mr. Cain, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Leventhorpe and the Speaker — 8

Against: Messrs. Cannan, North, Walker, Corrin, Brown, May, Duggan, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Kneale, Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Gelling, Karran and L.R. Cretney — 16

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the amendment fails to carry in the House of Keys, sir, with eight votes being cast in favour and 16 votes against.

In the Council -

For: Mr. Irving — 1

Against: Messrs. Lowey, Radcliffe, Quirk, Barton, Catlin, Luft and the President

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved T192 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

of the Council — 7

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council one vote cast in favour and seven votes against, the second amendment therefore fails to carry, and I put to you the motion standing in the name of the Chief Minister, unamended. Will hon. members in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys -

For: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Quine, North, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Corrin, Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Gelling, Karran, Leventhorpe, L.R. Cretney and the Speaker — 23

Against: Mrs. Hannan — 1

The Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, sir, with 23 votes being cast in favour and one vote against.

In the Council -

For: Messrs. Lowey, Radcliffe, Quirk, Barton, Cannan, Irving, Luft and the President of the Council — 8

Against: Nil.

The Governor: Hon. members, all votes in the Council cast in favour, the resolution therefore carries. Now, hon. members, I need to consult you on two matters. On the first I do not think a vote will be necessary (Laughter) (Mr. Anderson: Hear, hear.) because I think many of you have voted with your briefcases, if I may put it that way. (Laughter) However, I am obliged to consult you as to whether you wish to go on any further and I rather take it that you do not. But a more serious matter upon which we may have to vote, hon. members, is how we handle the 36 items that we still have left to discuss. There are two main schools of thought which have reached me. The first is that we should meet on Tuesday of next week and go through to Wednesday — this has come through very strongly — but there is a very strong view also been expressed that we should reserve Tuesday for the branches and meet only on Wednesday, and I think in order to resolve this, rather than ask any protagonist to put the views which I think are self- evident, I would seek your view. Is it your view, hon. members, that we should allocate two days next week (Members: Hear, hear.) to the business of this Court? There are one or two heads, but only one I see shaking. I think I would ask you, hon. members, will you say aye if you are in favour of two days next week — in a moment, please, Mr. Speaker — could I ask you, please, hon. members, if you are in favour of two days next week to say aye; and those against say no. Well

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988 T193 there are two members who say 'No' and although that would seem very conclusive, I would like to give Mr. Speaker the chance to speak because I know that as a presiding officer he has problems with his own House.

The Speaker: Yes, Your Excellency. The Chief Minister has referred to the business which is coming as a matter of urgency. We have had notice of at least six new Bills on the first Agenda, we have several Bills for completion, and inevitably the business of the House of Keys, which is set for next Tuesday and the Agenda has gone out, will be delayed. The House has to be prepared to accept that fact, Your Excellency, in making the decision they have, and that includes, of course, executive Government.

The Governor: So, hon. members, does any other hon. member wish to speak? The Chief Minister.

Mr. Walker: Could I just make the point, Your Excellency, that we have got a lot more business on the Tynwald Agenda and I think if we do not get to it on Tuesday of next week, much as I know the legislation is in the pipeline, I think it is going to delay us for a long time and I feel at this stage in our legislative session we should get this Tynwald business behind us and then start afresh when that is finished.

The Governor: Mr. Gilbey.

Mr. Gilbey: I wonder if there is some merit in just seeing, by running through these items, how many do need debating tonight.

The Governor: I think we have tried that before without success. (Laughter) Mr. Kermode.

Mr. Kermode: The only comment I would like to make, Your Excellency in the future, you know when we debate a Bill or something like the policy document, maybe We should reserve one day aside, a special day, to do that and therefore all the other business would not come into this predicament.

The Governor: Thank you. Mr. Kneale, do you wish to speak?

Mr. Kneale: I believe, sir, that we should carry on with the two days next week. It is not only a question that the Keys or the branches will be upset, other departments will be upset as well and we have got to forego that to get the business of Tynwald clear.

The Governor: Very good. Well, hon. members, if I may be somewhat abrupt, then I would like to put it formerly to the vote again. Would hon. members in favour of both days next week, being allocated to Tynwald business say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. The Court is adjourned until next Tuesday at 10.30 a.m.

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved TI94 TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th OCTOBER, 1988

The Court adjourned at 6.37 pan.

Government Policy Review — Debate Concluded — Motion Approved