10 Tyn Final Wed 17 Feb (FOR IAN) · Manx Heritage Foundation accounts – Qualification by...

T Y N W A L D C O U R T O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Q U A I Y L T I N V A A L

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

(HANSARD)

Douglas, Wednesday, 17th February 2010

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website

www.tynwald.org.im Official Papers/Hansards/Please select a year:

Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted upon application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.

Volume 127, No. 10

ISSN 1742-2256

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2010

TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 17th FEBRUARY 2010

_________________________________________________________________ 890 T127

BUSINESS TRANSACTED Page

Procedural ............................................................................................................................................892 Condolences to Mr Malarkey .............................................................................................................892 Papers laid before the Court................................................................................................................892 Procedural ............................................................................................................................................893

Questions for Oral Answer

1. Inquiry into Crown dependencies – Question withdrawn ....................................................894 3. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Question withdrawn.........................894 7. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Question withdrawn.........................894 2. Report on Review of Scope and Structure of Government – Speed of moving; communication with affected parties.............................................................................894 4. Report on Review of Scope and Structure of Government – Support of Ministers............895 5. Report on Review of Scope and Structure of Government – Estimated costs of restructuring ...................................................................................................................................896 6. Review of Scope and Structure of Government – Process through Council of Ministers..897 8. Report on Review of Scope and Structure of Government – Delivery to Members by Police ..............................................................................................................................................898 9. Reciprocal Health Agreement – Evidence to Justice Committee.........................................900 10. Justice Committee visit to Island – Reciprocal Health Agreement; VAT; relationship with UK ..........................................................................................................................................902 11. Proposed restructuring of Government – Consultation.........................................................903 12. Code of Practice on Consultation – Continued use...............................................................904 13. Access to Government Information Bill – Timetable for introduction................................905 14. Food security – Land used for productive farming ...............................................................906 15. Report on Cost spreadsheets and NPV calculations – Public access ...................................907 16. London Office – Value to Island ............................................................................................908 17. Construction industry – Effects of any cutbacks in capital projects ....................................910 18. Gross Domestic Product – Agriculture; Laxey Flour Mills; Creamery; Meat Plant...........912 19. Gross Domestic Product for agriculture – Inclusion of Meat Plant and Creamery.............913 20. Government vehicles – Fitting of tracking devices...............................................................915 21. Mouchel Parkman Review of IRIS 2007 – Discrepancies; review......................................919 22. Fisheries Management Agreement – Representation of Island fishing industry.................920 23. Deputy Chief Constable – Current duties ..............................................................................922 24. Jurby Prison – Use of education and work facilities .............................................................925 25. Police vetting system – DHA Minister’s failure to make a statement .................................927 26. Independent Safeguarding Authority, UK – Definition of ‘harm’.......................................928 27. TTFMAG – Details of safety co-ordination position............................................................928 28. Planning Division decisions – Workload; time to process; reducing delays.......................931 29. Lord Street hotel development – Start date; reasons for delay; cost....................................933 30. Castletown Golf Links Hotel; Castlemona Hotel – Future plans; recent history; conservation .....................................................................................................................934 31. Road Races (Amendment) Bill – Legal work .......................................................................936 32. Radio TT – Awarding of contract to Manx Radio ................................................................938

Questions for Written Answer 33. Sewage sludge – Costs of treatment.......................................................................................942 34. Manx Heritage Foundation accounts – Qualification by auditors........................................942 35. Boundary Review Committee – Appointment of new Committee ......................................943 36. Independence of Crown dependencies – Jersey’s Constitution Review document; joint discussions.............................................................................................................................944 37. Reciprocal health agreements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – Ministry of Justice deliberations ..................................................................................................................944 38. Planned restructuring of Government – Expansion on statement ........................................944 39. Review of the Scope and Structure of Government – Governance Committee discussions .....................................................................................................................................945


_________________________________________________________________ 891 T127

40. Ending of Reciprocal Health Agreement – Requests for meetings with Secretary of State ................................................................................................................................................945 41. Parole Committee – Membership...........................................................................................945 42. Work Permits – Numbers by country.....................................................................................945 43. IRIS – Deficiencies; litigation ................................................................................................948

The Court adjourned at 1.05p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

Orders of the Day 3. The Bowl – Statement by the Minister for Tourism and Leisure...............................................949 4. Select Committee of Tynwald on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander and the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme – Statement by the Chairman ..................................................953 Proposed Design and Build Contract at “The Steadings”, Farmhill – Statement made by the Minister for Local Government and the Environment................................................................955

5. Noble’s New Primary School – Enabling Works – Expenditure approved ..............................956 6. DHSS Supplementary Vote – Motion carried .............................................................................963 7. Battery Pier Firewater Scheme – Expenditure approved............................................................974 Procedural ............................................................................................................................................977

The Court adjourned at 5.00 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 5.30 p.m. 8. Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee – Independent Review of the Scope and Structure of Government – Report and recommendation – Debate commenced ............................978

Standing Order 1.2(2) suspended to complete Items 8 and 13 .......................................................1009

Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee – Independent Review of the Scope and Structure of Government – Debate continued – Amended motion carried ...................................1011 13. Government Departments Act 1987 – Statutory Boards Act 1987 – Transfer of Functions (New Departments) Order 2010 approved.......................................................................................1055

The Court adjourned at 12.26 a.m.

Present:

The President of Tynwald (The Hon. N Q Cringle, OBE)

In the Council: The Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man (The Rt Rev. R M E Paterson),

The Attorney General (Mr W J H Corlett QC), Mr D M W Butt, Mr D A Callister, Mrs C M Christian, Mr E A Crowe, Mr A F Downie,

Mr E G Lowey, Mr J R Turner and Mr G H Waft, with Mr J King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald.

In the Keys: The Speaker (Hon. S C Rodan) (Garff); The Chief Minister (The Hon. J A Brown) (Castletown);

Hon. D M Anderson (Glenfaba); Hon. A V Craine and Hon. A R Bell (Ramsey); Hon. W E Teare (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Mr T Crookall (Peel); Mr P Karran,

Hon. A J Earnshaw and Mr D J Quirk (Onchan); Hon. G M Quayle (Middle); Mr R W Henderson and Mr J R Houghton (Douglas North); Hon. D C Cretney and Mr W M Malarkey (Douglas South); Mr R P Braidwood and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Mr C G Corkish MBE and

Hon. J P Shimmin (Douglas West); Mr G D Cregeen (Malew and Santon); Mr J P Watterson, Hon. P A Gawne and Mr Q B Gill (Rushen); with Mr R I S Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald.


_________________________________________________________________ 892 T127

Tynwald

The Court met at 10.30 a.m.

[MR PRESIDENT in the Chair] The Deputy Clerk: Hon. Members, please be upstanding for the President of Tynwald. The President: Hon. Members, I call upon the Lord Bishop to lead us in prayer.

PRAYERS The Lord Bishop

Procedural The President: Hon. Members, when we rose last evening, we had, in fact, completed Order

Paper No. 2, which means that we are left with a complete Order Paper to get through today. 5

Condolences to Mr Malarkey

The President: Hon. Members, before we do return to our Order Paper, Mr Downie will be joining us later. He has been held up at an appointment, but I have to tell the Court that, unfortunately, Mrs Malarkey – Bill Malarkey’s mother – has died this morning and he may or may not join us later, depending how things go, but certainly I am sure the Court will be happy to send our condolences to Bill and his family. 10

Papers laid before the Court The President: Hon. Members, I call upon the Clerk to lay papers. Order Paper No.1. The Clerk: Mr President, I beg to lay before the Court the papers set out in Order Paper No. 1.

Government Departments Act 1987 – Statutory Boards Act 1987 –

Transfer of Functions (New Departments) Order 2010 [SD No 70/10] Fees and Duties Act 1989 –

Work Permit (Fees) Order 2010 [SD No 13/10] Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1996 –

Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations 2010 [SD No 61/10] Licensing and Registration of Vehicles Act 1985 –

Vehicle Duty Order 2010 [SD No 40/10] Sewerage Act 1999 –

Drainage (Communication Fees) Order 2010 [SD No 47/10]


_________________________________________________________________ 893 T127

Harbours (Isle of Man) Act 1961 – Harbour Dues (Pleasure Vessels, House Boats, Large Commercial Yachts and Tall Ships) Regulations Order 2010 [SD No 46/10]

Customs and Excise Act 1993 –

Customs and Excise Acts (Customs Penalties) (Application) (Amendment) Order 2009 [SD No 906/09]

Medicines Act 2003 –

Medicines Act 2003 (Extension of Application) (Mephedrone) Order 2010 [SD No 41/10]

Reports Report of the Council of Ministers on the Review of the Scope and Structure of the Isle of Man Government [GD 07/10] Second Report to Tynwald of the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald Session 2009-10 [PP No 05/10] Note: The following items are not the subject of motions on the Order Paper Superannuation Act 1984 –

Superannuation (Clerk of Tynwald’s Department) Determination (No.1) 2010 [SD No 0027/10]

European Community –

EC Secondary Legislation – December 2009 [GC No 0001/10] EC Secondary Legislation – January 2010 [GC No 0005/10]

Reports

Report to Tynwald by the Department of Local Government and the Environment – Report of the Public Auditors on the Accounts of Local Authorities, Burial Authorities, Elderly Persons’ Housing Committees and Joint Boards [GD No 0004/10] Report to Tynwald by the Council of Ministers – Report on investigation into mechanical and electrical upgrade work tendered for at Marashen Crescent and Reayrt y Chrink Elderly Persons Housing Complexes [GD No 0003/10] Annual Report 2008-2009 of the Overseas Aid Committee of the Council of Ministers 2008-2009 [GD No 0005/10] The Manx Heritage Foundation Financial Statements for the year ended 31st March 2009 [GD No 08/10]

Procedural The President: Hon. Members, I just ask you to note that, in laying the papers, the Statutory

Document No 41/10, the Medicines Act 2003 (Extension of Application) (Mephedrone) Order 2010 will come into operation on 1st March 2010: just to note that on the laid papers.


_________________________________________________________________ 894 T127

Questions for Oral Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

Inquiry into Crown dependencies Publication of written evidence

Question withdrawn

1. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister: If he will publish the Government’s written evidence to the House of Commons Justice Committee Inquiry into Crown Dependencies? 15 [Question withdrawn]

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Effect of abolition

Question withdrawn

3. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Henderson) to ask the Chief Minister: What effect will abolition of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have on local agricultural business? 20 [Question withdrawn]

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Reasons for supporting abolition

Question withdrawn

7. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Henderson) to ask the Chief Minister: What is the Council of Ministers’ reasoning in backing proposals to abolish the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as set out in his Report on the Structure of Government? [Question withdrawn] 25 The President: Hon. Members, we then turn to the Question Paper and Questions 1, 3 and 7

have been withdrawn.

Report on Review of Scope and Structure of Government Speed of moving; communication with affected parties

2. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Henderson) to ask the Chief Minister:

(a) why he has chosen to move the Council of Ministers Report (Item 8) on the Review of the Scope and Structure of the Isle of Man Government at this month’s Tynwald so speedily; and 30 (b) why this is being done against his own policy on communication with affected parties? The President: So we start this morning on the Question Paper with Question 2 and I call the

Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. 35


_________________________________________________________________ 895 T127

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my ennym.

The President: Question 2. Chief Minister, please. 40 The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Thank you, Mr President. It has always been my intention to report to Tynwald as soon as the Council of Ministers was

in a position to do so. As soon as Hon. Members were informed of the Council’s proposals for restructuring, actions

were implemented to inform the people that were most interested in them, that is Government 45 employees, trade unions, bodies representing specific interests, such as agriculture and finance industries and local authorities, sir.

Thank you. The President: Mr Henderson. 50 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Could the Chief Minister answer why there has been no consultation as such and why the

Report was dealt with in the way that it was? 55 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. This issue has been in the public arena for a number of years and as it is about the internal

structuring of Government and not how we provide services, in terms of altering any of those 60 services, it was felt appropriate to deal with it the way we have, sir.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Could the Ard-shirveishagh inform this Hon. Court, allowing for one of the 65

hardest Budgets we have had for the last 20 odd years, where is the cost implications, as far as his proposals are concerned?

Can he give us a timeframe of why it seems that even his Ministers were not fully aware of what was going on, as far as the proposals that were in front of us?

70 The President: Let us not widen it too far, Hon. Members, it will be debated later. Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Mr President, I have got a question about the costings later on. I have

already answered that in the House of Keys: the Hon. Member was there and Ministers dealt with 75 this in the normal manner, sir.

The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 80 Will the Ard-shirveishagh agree that the speed in which this was moved has, in fact, done a

disservice to Hon. Members of this Court and the staff of government in general? The President: Chief Minister. 85 The Chief Minister: No, I do not agree with that, sir. I think the point is quite straightforward.

Not only did we comply with Standing Orders, we actually gave Members this Report in advance and we also gave Members a copy of the independent review team report as support information, so they fully understood the picture, sir.

Report on Review of Scope and Structure of Government Support of Ministers



_________________________________________________________________ 896 T127

Whether the report and motion at Item 8 of the Order paper has the support of all the Ministers 90 within the Council of Ministers? The President: Question 4. Hon. Member, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my 95

ennym. The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, I can confirm the Report, as at Item 8 on 100

today’s Order Paper, was a decision of the Council of Ministers, sir. The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 105 Can the Ard-shirveishagh confirm, notwithstanding that he gives us an overview, can he give

us an implicit view that, prior to any changes announced, the original Report as delivered to Hon. Members’ houses, did have full, and I say full, unanimous support of the Council of Ministers?

The President: Chief Minister. 110 The Chief Minister: It was a decision of the Council of Ministers, sir. The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. 115 Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that, just like Department Members are, as

far as the Ministers are concerned, they are supernumerary? Is it not a fact that the Chief Minister hires and fires his Ministers, as far as the issue is concerned? So would it not be academic, anyway, what they wished?

120 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: I think that does a disservice to Ministers and Hon. Members of this Hon.

Court, Mr President. All Members, including Ministers, have a code of conduct which they work to, which enables 125

them to stand with their beliefs and, if necessary, they can make decisions of their own if they felt that was absolutely necessary, which could be to resign from their position.

The President: Mr Henderson. 130 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Could the Ard-shirveishagh confirm that, at the original CoMin approval of the document,

there is no record of dissent on the Council of Ministers’ meetings by any Minister in regard to their objection to the Report?

135 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: It was a decision of the Council of Ministers, sir.

Report on Review of Scope and Structure of Government Estimated costs of restructuring


If the Council of Ministers’ report on the ‘Review of the Scope and Structure of the Isle of Man Government’ is approved by Tynwald, what are the estimated costs involved with this 140 restructuring process?


_________________________________________________________________ 897 T127

The President: We go on to Question 5. Mr Henderson. 145 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my

ennym. The President: Again, the Answer is in the hands of the Chief Minister. 150 The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, as I advised the House of Keys at its last

sitting last week, I confirm that no actual costs or savings have been identified, and the projection of any such figures at this time would be likely to be artificial, misleading and found to be wanting, sir.

155 The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. In that respect, Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh agree, then, that in fact this whole

issue is premature and requires far more assessment? 160 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: No, I do not agree, sir. 165 The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that he says it is misleading…

Would it not be misleading to the taxpayers of this Island and to this Hon. Court not to have done that basic situation, allowing for the fact that, last night, one was ridiculed because the Budget was 170 not being au fait with the political and financial realities outside this Hon. Court, that he is doing the very same thing on such an important issue?

The President: Chief Minister. 175 The Chief Minister: What I am aware of, Mr President, is if we continue as we are it will cost

us money and there is a greater possibility, with the restructuring, that we can make some savings and efficiencies for the future, sir.

A Member: Hear, hear. 180 The President: Mr Watterson, Hon. Member for Rushen. Mr Watterson: The Chief Minister might not have costed this, but he has said that it will

make better use of synergies and efficiencies. Can he be specific and name three? 185 The President: Chief Minister The Chief Minister: Well, I think instead of naming three, just look at one proposal of the

new Department of Economic Development, which puts together more than three items of 190 Departments to make them more working together, co-operation and synergy and makes them far more effective and, in fact, will make the Isle of Man, which is what this is about… make the Isle of Man Government more effective in competing for business in the world market.

Review of Scope and Structure of Government Process through Council of Ministers



_________________________________________________________________ 898 T127

If he will make a statement as to the process the report ‘a Review of the Scope and Structure of Government in the Isle of Man – an Independent Report to the Council of Ministers’ went 195 through to reach the Council of Ministers; whether it was presented to Council in the usual way via ‘Council Papers’ prior to the CoMin meeting; and whether Council agreed as a whole to have it referred to the Governance Committee; whether the recommendations from the CoMin Governance Committee came back to the Council of Ministers in the usual way of the Chief Secretary’s Office and was placed in Ministers’ briefing packs prior to the CoMin 200 meeting and on the CoMin agenda; and whether the Chief Minister has the authority to direct Ministers to vote in a certain way? The President: Question 6. Mr Henderson. 205 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my

ennym. I beg to ask the Question in my name. The President: Chief Minister. 210 The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, in relation to the process of dealing with the

original independent report, I can confirm that, in September 2006, the report was referred to, and considered by, the Council of Ministers in the normal manner. However, as that was just prior to the General Election, the decision was made to publish the report. Following the election, and my appointment as Chief Minister, it was referred to the Governance Committee in order that the 215 report and recommendations could be considered. I can confirm that, as far as the records of agendas and minutes are concerned, this matter appears to have been treated in the normal manner.

Mr President, I can also confirm that the Chief Minister does not – and I repeat, does not – have the authority to direct Ministers to vote in a certain way, sir.

220 The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I thank the Shirveishagh for his clarifying answer on that. Can he confirm that, ultimately,

when this report came to Council of Ministers, if he could just re-clarify that, in fact, it came to 225 full Council via its normal route and that, indeed, the policy of how Council of Ministers runs is that it is put to a collective view? Rather than one particular person lambasting their way through Council of Ministers, it has to be collectively agreed on and could he categorically deny that no one objected to it?

230 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: The Hon. Member is going into the proceedings of the Council of

Ministers, which of course he is aware, as a former Minister, are statutorily confidential. However, what I can say again is: a decision of the Council of Ministers is a decision the Council of 235 Ministers and that requires a majority to make that decision, sir.

Report on Review of Scope and Structure of Government Delivery to Members by Police

8. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Chief Minister:

What was the justification for the Isle of Man Constabulary being required to deliver the document ‘The Review of the Scope and Structure of the Isle of Man Government’ to the private residence of every Member of Tynwald on Sunday afternoon 31st January 2010; and is this appropriate use of Police time and were overtime costs involved? 240 The President: Question 8. Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Cannan: Mr President, I ask the Question standing in my name, sir. 245 The President: Again, Chief Minister.


_________________________________________________________________ 899 T127

The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Thank you, Mr President. The Constabulary has a long history of assisting in the delivery of documents that are of an

important national, governmental or parliamentary nature. I deemed it was essential that Hon. Members were in receipt of the documents at the earliest opportunity, before the information 250 entered into the public domain and to give Hon. Members as much additional time as possible to consider the documents. No additional costs were incurred in the delivery of the documents, which was done by neighbourhood policing team officers, as they were included as part of their normal duties, sir.

255 The President: Mr Cannan. Mr Cannan: Could the Chief Minister tell us when the printing of the documents for Item 13

on the Order Paper, and Item 8 on the Order Paper also, was completed? Was it completed on Friday or was it completed on overtime on Saturday? 260

The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: The documentation which Members received by the special delivery, sir,

were in fact completed on Friday. 265 The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Cannan: I asked the Chief Minister when the printing of these documents was completed.

Was it completed on the Friday, the Saturday or the Sunday when they were delivered? 270 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: I did just answer that, Mr President. I said they were printed and

completed on the Friday. 275 The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. Mr Karran: Does the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that many outside may be looking at this in

a more cynical way that the speed, as far as this document is concerned, is just part of Government 280 spin to try and get other concerns like the Reciprocal Health Agreement off the top of the concerns, as far as the Isle of Man general public is concerned?

What assurances can we have that this document has not been half thought out and been used for such a process?

285 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Mr President, Hon. Members know very well that I have had questions

asked of me in this place and in another place asking when am I going to report on the independent review team’s report and we have now got to a position where we can report on the review team’s 290 report, sir.

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh – let’s be perfectly honest – on numerous issues you 295

have questions, as far as different issues: why was there sudden speed as far as the breaking of the sieges, as far as this issue? Is it because of the fact it was to take the heat away from the Council of Ministers and their handling of the Reciprocal Health Agreement and would he not agree that, if that is the case, that is not the right way we should be running the Government of the Isle of Man on such a strategically important issue as what is going to be in front of us after this Question 300 Paper?

The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: I would ask for clarification from you, Mr President, as to whether the 305

Government has broken the procedures of Tynwald in putting this paper towards Tynwald Members?


_________________________________________________________________ 900 T127

The President: It has not, sir. The Chief Minister: That being said, Mr President, can I say we did not break the procedures. 310

In fact, the Standing Orders are quite specific in terms of reports. I have to say Members often receive more comprehensive reports from Government and from Tynwald itself with the normal procedure of 14 days’ notice and Members make decisions on them and some of those are very complex, far more complex than what is in this Report, sir.

315 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that this Member was not talking about the

procedures in Tynwald, but with something as strategically important as this, the question of why this has had such a small lead in, as far as this issue is concerned? 320

Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that he gets claims on so many other issues that need to be done? We have only got to look at the Disability Discrimination Act that you promised, three years ago, you would bring in. There are numerous other things. Why did you particularly want to bring in this at such a speed, allowing for the fact that it is so complicated and it needs to be well thought out? Was it to try and take the heat away from other political matters? 325

The President: I think the Chief Minister has already answered that question, but if he wishes,

I will allow him to continue. Mr Karran: No, he has not answered. 330 The Chief Minister: If I can just say, Mr President, it is not complicated. It is pretty

straightforward, actually, and Members who certainly have lots of experience, or at least I think they have – I am sure they have – of dealing with quite complex reports and having to make decisions, this is actually one of the most straightforward reports on its recommendation. It is 335 actually pretty straightforward, pretty clear. There are even diagrams to show how straightforward it is and I am sure most Members acknowledge that.

As far as the issue of – and the Member has mentioned it – the Disability Discrimination Act – and I do find it unfortunate when things are thrown in, when the Member knows better – the Act is actually on the statute books. There is a lead-in period in which the Isle of Man is endeavouring to 340 bring forward the regulations, with consultation, and we are endeavouring to do it in about half the time the UK took to do exactly the same task, sir.

So there is no lack of commitment and I think, in trying to mislead and confuse, by throwing this into that, is not very helpful.

Reciprocal Health Agreement Evidence to Justice Committee


Whether the House of Commons Justice Committee which is currently looking into the 345 relationship between Crown dependencies and the Crown is to widen its remit and examine the termination of the Reciprocal Health Agreement; if so, who is to give evidence to the Committee on behalf of the Isle of Man; and whether he will ensure that the evidence represents as many interested parties on the Isle of Man, such as: (i) all Ex-service Personnel Associations; 350 (ii) Manx Blind Welfare Association and Friends of the Manx Diabetic Centre; (iii) Manx Foundation for the Physically Disabled; and (iv) other healthcare associations and organisations including those responsible for care of the elderly? 355 The President: Question 9. Hon. Member, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my

ennym. 360


_________________________________________________________________ 901 T127

The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Thank you, Mr President. I am not formally aware that the House of Commons Justice Committee has widened its remit

to include examining the termination of the Reciprocal Health Agreement. 365 Mr President, the remit of the United Kingdom committee is: ‘to conduct a brief enquiry into the role and performance of the Ministry of Justice in relation to the Crown dependencies’ 370

and not the relationship between the Crown dependencies and the Crown, as indicated by the Hon. Member, sir, so I hope that helps clarify it.

The President: Mr Henderson. 375 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Can the Ard-shirveishagh confirm that members of UK committee may well be visiting the

Island in the near future, and that they may well be interested, as an aside, as to the terminating arrangements? If that is correct, would he be willing, then, to put our points of view forward?

380 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: I certainly hope to have the opportunity, when I speak to the Chairman

and his colleague and the secretary, when they come to the Isle of Man – they are coming at the invite of myself, on behalf of the Council of Ministers – and there will also be an opportunity for 385 Hon. Members to meet them at lunchtime, while they are here on their visit and I am sure Hon. Members will take that opportunity.

However, I think it is very important – very important – that we do not mix up the specific issue which is important to the Island, of the reciprocal agreement, and the task which that committee is undertaking, which is about where we lie in our relationship with the United 390 Kingdom, when we deal with the United Kingdom on behalf of the people of the Isle of Man. But I do believe it will be helpful and I certainly will take the opportunity – for Members to express their concerns about the decision made by the United Kingdom government.

The President: Mr Henderson. 395 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Will the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that, in fact, the severing of the reciprocal health

arrangement would have, has had and will in the future have, an impact on our relationships that this committee is looking at; therefore it is important that, although, yes, it is a separate issue, I 400 agree, the effects that it will have on the main thrust of their examinations are clear to everyone? Therefore, will he agree that not just from Hon. Members’ points of view – I have already spoken to the secretary expressing their views – it is important for IOMG, the Council of Ministers, to express their views appropriately, as and when they can, when the members do visit our Island?

405 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: I think it is important, again, Mr President, really Members need to be

careful… The Justice Committee of the United Kingdom House of Commons is coming to look at a specific task about the Isle of Man and how our relationship is with the Ministry of Justice. 410 During that visit, if there is an opportunity to informally raise the issue of our concerns on a number of matters, I am sure we will, but we should not lose focus of what their real task is, which is actually looking at our relationship with the United Kingdom.

I believe that is critically important because it is not just our views they are listening to, it is the views of the other Crown dependencies who actually have a slightly different view to ours and I 415 believe that our relationship that we have now got with, and we are talking about, the formal relationship with and through the Ministry of Justice, is in fact in the Isle of Man’s best interests. That is not the view of some other party, sir.

The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. 420


_________________________________________________________________ 902 T127

Mr Cannan: Notwithstanding all the Chief Minister has said, surely if the Council of Ministers were concerned at the groundswell of public opinion in the Isle of Man for the retention of the Reciprocal Health Agreement, they would make a submission to that committee on an information basis only. Why do they not do so? 425

The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: All I can say is, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Hon. Member

has never sat on a standing committee or a select committee of Tynwald Court! When we set down 430 the remit of the committee, if somebody was to write in on a subject matter that had nothing at all to do with the remit, I am sure the Hon. Member – and he has been chairman of plenty – would certainly reply saying it is not a matter we can deal with.

Yes, we will have an opportunity to informally discuss, mention, raise with the members, who are Members of Parliament, our concerns. That is different from our formal procedures, which are 435 doing a specific task, and I really believe Hon. Members need to be careful in how we deal with this, so that we do not create a problem for the Isle of Man in the long term future.

Yes, we are concerned. The UK know our concerns; MPs know our concerns; Members of the House of Lords know our concerns; the public know our concerns. Taking the opportunity to emphasise it again, informally, is something I am sure we all welcome to have the opportunity to 440 do while these people are visiting the Isle of Man.

The President: Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Cannan: Is the Chief Minister not aware, having read reports of select committees of 445

which I have been either a member or chairman, that letters submitted to that committee, while they may not be strictly in the terms of the remit to that committee, are noted and generally or, in many cases, attached as an appendix to the report; and therefore there is no difference in making a formal submission, requesting the committee to note the concerns of the majority of the people of the Isle of Man? 450

The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: The Hon. Member is clearly misleading the public, sir, through the

medium of Tynwald Court, which is broadcast. All I can say to the public is: do not be misled. 455 Can I just refer again – (Interjection by Mr Cannan) Can I just refer again to the remit of the

UK Justice Committee – a committee set up by the United Kingdom Parliament, not by the Isle of Man – who have been tasked with a role by their Parliament and their remit is – and I quote again:

‘to conduct a brief enquiry into the role and performance of the Ministry of Justice in relation to the Crown 460 dependencies’.

Justice Committee visit to Island Reciprocal Health Agreement; VAT; relationship with UK


Whether the Council of Ministers will do everything within its power to advise the House of Commons Justice Committee members when they visit the Island about the negative effects of termination of the Reciprocal Health Agreement; and if he will highlight the stance the UK has had towards the Island in respect of the re-arranging of the VAT sharing arrangements which 465 together would appear to have severed the Isle of Man’s relationship with the UK? The President: Question 10, Hon. Member, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my 470

ennym. The President: Chief Minister.


_________________________________________________________________ 903 T127

The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Thank you, Mr President. 475 I confirm that I intend to raise the two issues referred to with the House of Commons Justice

Committee within the context of discussions, sir. The President: Mr Henderson. 480 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I am very pleased that the Chief Minister has acknowledged that he will now be doing this,

positively. Thank you, sir. The Chief Minister: As I did, sir, in the last Question. 485

Proposed restructuring of Government

Consultation

11. The Hon. Member for Garff (Mr Rodan) to ask the Chief Minister: Whether radical changes to the structure of Government proposed from 1st April have been informed by discussion and debate across the Island; and, if so, with whom consultation took place? The President: Question 11, Mr Speaker. 490 The Speaker: Mr President, I ask the Question standing in my name, sir. The President: Chief Minister. 495 The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, I can confirm that no public debate or

consultation has taken place, as the internal restructuring of Government Departments does not adversely impact on the provision or delivery of services, nor does it change any public services, sir.

500 The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Mr President, does the Chief Minister recall making a New Year’s statement,

which was published in the Isle of Man Examiner, on 5th January, in which he said: 505 ‘We face fundamental questions about the structure, role and size of Government. These will be hard questions with hard answers. Such a radical review will need to be informed by discussion and debate across the Island, involving Members of Tynwald, Government staff, the business community, the voluntary sector, the general public and other stakeholders’? 510 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Yes, I do, and that will happen, sir, if in fact Tynwald endorses the

changes. The whole intention is – and there is a programme being set up – for the Government to go 515

round the Island to discuss the basis of the changes and why we are making them. The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Does the Chief Minister not agree that it would have been more appropriate to 520

conduct that wide-ranging consultation over such a radical proposal before actually publishing the proposals?

The President: Chief Minister. 525 The Chief Minister: I would suggest it is not radical. I would suggest what we are talking

about is a restructuring of how Government undertakes the statutory roles that Departments have


_________________________________________________________________ 904 T127

and formulating them into a new structure. The issue of then how it will all progress, which is a concern that might well be raised, we will discuss with the public. As I say, programmes are being set up to go round the Island to discuss not only that, but other issues that are before us, sir. 530

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that, then, it is about talking at people,

instead of with people? 535 Would the Ard-shirveishagh not also agree, it does seem that it was quite appropriate to have

that viewpoint at the beginning of the year, now a totally different viewpoint at this time of year: is the Chief Minister just making it up as he goes along?

The President: Chief Minister. 540 The Chief Minister: The viewpoint I have already responded to, sir. As far as I am concerned, we are endeavouring to restructure Government to make it more

effective, and that is the role of Government. The issue, then, is about explaining to people and talking with people and getting them to understand why those changes have been made, sir. 545

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that it is time, especially with the fact that

we have just managed to take a quarter of our reserves just to sort out this year’s problems, as far 550 as the Budget is concerned…? Would the Shirveishagh not agree – (Interjection) Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that also the fact is that we need to try and use the ability that is outside this Hon. Court more?

Would he not agree that if we were to have a system, as far as this important issue, where we actually listen to what has to be said of where the changes are, instead of telling them where the 555 changes are, from people outside this Hon. Court, he might get more of an effective and efficient response from people and actually create a policy that would help him and his Government, in order to be able to balance the books?

The President: Chief Minister. 560 The Chief Minister: Mr President, again, I will cover this when we get to the debate, but can I

say we are not talking about changing any of the functions of Department. We are not talking about diminishing of services; we are not talking about changing them. Anything that may follow from that, clearly, will go through the normal process, as it will do. 565

We are talking about how Government is structured to enable it to carry out its responsibilities on behalf of the people of the Isle of Man, and if we want to fiddle while Rome burns, then so be it.

Code of Practice on Consultation Continued use

12. The Hon. Member for Garff (Mr Rodan) to ask the Chief Minister:

Whether the Code of Practice on Consultation for Departments, Statutory Boards and Offices is still used as ‘a template for best practice when considering major policy decisions where 570 consultation may be appropriate’? The President: Question 12. Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Mr President, I ask the Question standing in my name, sir. 575 The President: Again, I ask the Chief Minister to reply.


_________________________________________________________________ 905 T127

The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, the Code continues to be accepted as offering best practice. However, there is provision within the Code to enable Ministers to have discretion 580 not to conduct a formal written consultation exercise, sir.

The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Mr President, is the Chief Minister saying that the most extensive re-casting of 585

Government structure since 1986 is not a major policy decision and, therefore, not warranting of consultation before the decision is brought to Tynwald for approval?

The President: Chief Minister. 590 The Chief Minister: Mr President, again we come back to the point: it is about restructuring

the Departments of Government, not the services in terms of how they are delivered to the public in terms that it will alter or diminish any of those services. Quite clearly, what we are hoping for in a restructuring is to create a better structure of Government that will help us move forward.

Again, I make the point that the Code specifically allows that if Government feels it is not 595 appropriate, or there is no need to consult, then we can do that and I would suggest that the restructuring, in the way that we are doing, is an internal issue for how Government operates.

The President: Mr Speaker. 600 The Speaker: Was the move away from a board system to a ministerial system, which

changed the way existing services were delivered, was that not a major policy decision? Did that not take place only after extensive consultation and debate with Members of Tynwald and others? And is today’s exercise not similarly radical in its change of policy direction as to restructure of Government, rather than the services that are being delivered? 605

The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I was a member of the Tynwald Select Committee that looked at that and I can say that there 610

was no way that this is anything like as radical as the decisions that were made then. The decisions that were made then was to go from 24 Statutory Boards of Tynwald – which were all independent – into nine Departments, to bring together and co-ordinate all the functions to make the Isle of Man Government more effective.

I would suggest history proves that that change has not only made us more effective, it had a 615 lot to do with the improved quality of life of the people of the Isle of Man and to enable us to be far more competitive and effective in the world market. It did not go to public consultation, as far as I recall, it was a Report which came to Tynwald – by the way, with 14 days’ notice under Standing Orders, sir.

Access to Government Information Bill Timetable for introduction


What the timetable is for the introduction into the Branches of the Access to Government 620 Information Bill? The President: Question 13. Mr Speaker. The Speaker: I ask the Question standing in my name, sir. 625 The President: Again, Chief Minister to reply. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, the Access to Information Bill has been

drafted and it is proposed that the draft Bill will be ready for public consultation by April this year. 630


_________________________________________________________________ 906 T127

It is unlikely that the Bill will be ready for introduction into the branches until the next legislative year.

Food security Land used for productive farming


If he supports Government policy on food security for the Island, and whether 80 per cent of the Island’s land mass is currently used for productive farming? 635 The President: Question 14. Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my

ennym. 640 The President: Chief Minister. Question 14, sir. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, yes I do support the policy on food security

for the Island. Figures compiled as part of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s annual 645

agricultural census record that just over 80% of the Island’s land mass can be categorised as eligible agricultural land, being land which is, or is capable of being, used for agricultural production. I understand that it is impossible to say all this land is being used for productive farming. It is the Department’s belief that the majority of this land is being used productively.

650 The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Given the Ard-shirveishagh’s Answer then, I take it that he would categorically agree with me

that, in fact, this would give the agricultural industry, that we are lucky enough to have here, a 655 great sense of importance in the middle of our economy?

The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: I think I was extremely clear in my answers in the House of Keys as to 660

the support for agriculture on the Isle of Man by this Government. The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, while I congratulate the Minister for his commitment as far as food 665

security is concerned, as far as the Island is concerned, what is his Government doing to make sure that we protect the infrastructure for food security, such as the problems that are on the horizon as far as the meat plant and the issues of even the creamery having problems, as far as its long-term viability is concerned?

Has he got any new initiatives, with his Minister, in order to make sure that the taxpayer does 670 not end up having to pay a large amount of money in order to keep that food security with new initiatives?

The President: Again, we are widening the question. Chief Minister. 675 The Chief Minister: I am sure the Minister for Agriculture could tell the Hon. Member, what

is endeavouring to go on there to support the industry. I have to say we can have the best agricultural industry in the world, but unless it is supported by the consumer, it will be worth nothing, sir. 680

The President: Mr Karran.


_________________________________________________________________ 907 T127

Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that, yes, he is quite right, but would he also not agree that if you do not have a meat plant and you do not have a dairy, a creamery, to 685 actually take the products, then the whole viability of his agricultural industry goes down the tubes, anyway? Especially with the fact that his Government signed this reciprocal health… this reciprocal… this agreement with the… this User Agreement with the Steam Packet Company, which has an awful effect, as far as freight charges are concerned?

690 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: We do have a meat plant, sir and we do have a creamery.

Report on Cost spreadsheets and NPV calculations Public access

15. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister:

Whether the 58 page report on the Cost spreadsheets and NPV calculations can be made available for the public to access? 695 The President: Question 15. Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. 700 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, I am advised that the information is already

accessible and open for inspection by the public should anyone wish to see it, sir. 705 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh just clarify that situation, so members of

the public can see all the information. In order to make sure that they can see it, would he just clarify that it is not Members of 710

Tynwald that only can see this, as far as that information is concerned? Would he not agree it would be far better, if we are trying to get the Library to be the focus of Government information, that they should have that information, as far as the Library is concerned?

The President: Chief Minister. 715 The Chief Minister: I think it would be very helpful to all of us, if, when questions are asked,

people kept an eye on the answers! The answer from the Hon. Minister for Transport, in answer to a question raised in the House

of Keys by the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, on 26th January 2010 – and I understand he 720 made the offer, which was:

‘and allow for inspection of the detailed information’.

So the answer has been given in another place. It is being asked again now, not by the Minister… 725 not to be answered by the Minister for Transport, but by myself and the answer can be only the same. It is available for inspection.

The President: Mr Karran. 730 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that I actually replied to the

Minister, when you talk about technical engineering processes, that the issue is, it is a bit like me having access to give to the Minister for Transport a script that is put in Hebrew or Tibetan: would he not agree that the issue is about making sure that Hon. Members in this Court have a well-informed… and have the facilities so that they do not have to go along with what usually happens, 735 which means that the taxpayer ends up losing?


_________________________________________________________________ 908 T127

Will he make a simple declaration that, if there is information, as far as public information is concerned, and people outside this Hon. Court have concerns, they can have that information, in order to make sure we do not end up wasting more taxpayers’ money?

740 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: I refer to my original Answer, sir, which is quite straightforward, quite

simple. I just repeat it, so it is not forgotten: I am advised that the information is already accessible and open for inspection by the public, should anyone wish to see it. The public is not just 745 Members of this Court, sir.

TREASURY

London Office Value to Island

16. The Hon. Member for Rushen (Mr Gill) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What is the annual cost of the office in 1 Cornhill, London; and if he will make a statement on its value to the Isle of Man? The President: Question 16. Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill. 750 Mr Gill: Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my ennym. The President: This time I turn to the Minister for the Treasury for the Answer, please. Mr Bell. 755 The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, I refer to my Answer to Question 10

at the sitting of the House of Keys on 9th February 2010. The annual cost, inclusive of service fee charges, is £149,160 in 2009-10 and £153,480 in 2010-11.

Mr President, I have nothing further to add by way of a statement to the detailed response I 760 made in the House of Keys last week.

The President: Question 17. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane. 765 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: In the light of the Budget and the fact that we need to find money from all sorts

of sources, would the Shirveishagh Tashtee now consider that maybe the users that do use this 770 facility should be paying something, as far as the costs, allowing for the fact that we do not want to discourage people from using it? Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree, we can talk about the user pays, then maybe those in the finance sector should pay something towards the costs in the light of our problems the Treasury Minister has trying to find any different areas?

775 The President: Minister. The Minister: Mr President, I did bring in a charge when we first made this facility. As a

result, primarily, of lobbying from Members of this Hon. Court, that fee was removed. At the moment we have no plans to bring it back, but we will keep everything under review as time goes 780 on.

The President: Mr Watterson, Hon. Member for Rushen. Mr Watterson: Would the Treasury Minister agree that, if we are going to improve our 785

marketing and political presence in London, what we really need is a shop front, a greater


_________________________________________________________________ 909 T127

awareness and great presence, rather than an office squirrelled away in the middle of an office block, without so much as an Isle of Man flag on the door?

The President: Minister. 790 The Minister: Again, I have answered this question, Mr President. I agree with the Hon. Member, in an ideal world we would have a shop front and, indeed, I

think Isle of Man Tourism, way back in the 1960s did have an office in Regent Street, I think it was, in London, which was a very high-profile office in the centre of town. These things, though, 795 come at an enormous cost these days, not only for the rental of the building, but also the cost of having a permanent establishment there.

This is a working office for members of the Isle of Man business community at all levels, not just financial services, but right across the economy and, indeed, for Departments of Government to use as a work base when they come into town. It is not meant as a shop front in the previous 800 guise that Isle of Man Tourism used to have.

In an ideal world, if we could find a way to do it, that would be the perfect solution, but I think, given the financial constraints we have at the moment, the presence we have at this stage in a prestigious building, a serviced office, right next to the Bank of England is probably the best we can afford under the present circumstances, Mr President. 805

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Thank you. When the Minister talks about the ‘enormous cost’ of having that presence he has described, 810

what is the estimate of that enormous cost or is it just a phrase he is using, sir? The President: Minister. The Minister: The Hon. Member is very picky about the use of words, I accept that. 815 The ‘enormous cost’, Mr President, is to have a ground level, public access office in the centre

of London, especially in the centre of the City of London, where we are at the moment. As I say, we are almost across the road from the Bank of England and, fully staffed, would be considerably in excess of the cost that we have at the moment.

Indeed, I think Gibraltar has an office, not in the centre, but it is not too far from the centre, 820 which they have spent several million pounds on, by purchasing the office rather than renting it. Obviously, they have a more urgent agenda, perhaps, than we do in some respects, but it will be considerably in excess of the figure we are talking here.

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. 825 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, whilst agreeing with the Shirveishagh Tashtee as far as the cost it

would be to have a shop front, does he not feel that it needs to be consistent? We have seen our hard Budget, we have seen increases on many other things. I think, would he not agree, that maybe we need to say to these people that use this facility, allowing for the hundreds of thousands of 830 pounds that his Department pays in subsidising this facility, that they should be part of that deal, as far as the user pays principle and that they should putting something into the pot in order to help the Treasury, as far as this important facility is concerned?

The President: Same question again. Minister to reply. 835 The Minister: I have answered this question already, Mr President, but I would just point out

that this is part of marketing, and it is in the same vein as the marketing support we give to the tourist industry, the factoring industry, the Shipping Register and many other sectors of the business community. This is available for all aspects of the economy, it is not just financial 840 services and, indeed, it is used by Government as well.

We brought the charges in initially. Political lobbying removed those charges. At the moment we have no plans to do it, but as I have already said, it is under review. Everything is up for review at the moment and we will see how things go in the time ahead.


_________________________________________________________________ 910 T127

Construction industry Effects of any cutbacks in capital projects

17. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Whether there are going to be cutbacks in spending on Capital Projects by Government and, if 845 so, by how much; what effects will any cutbacks have on the construction industry; and whether Treasury has taken any initiatives in order to minimise the effects of unemployment in the construction industry ? The President: Question 17, Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 850 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. The President: Again, the Treasury Minister to reply. 855 The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, the Capital Programme for the next

five years was outlined in my Budget yesterday. On page 5 of the Pink Book, a table shows the reduced overall level of capital expenditure budgeted against that of a year ago, which amounts to £75 million over the next four years.

In compiling the Capital Programme, we have been acutely aware of the current market 860 conditions in the construction industry. Together with the Minister for Local Government and the Environment and Minister for Trade and Industry, I recently met with representatives of the construction industry, so I am well aware of the problems and difficulty they are facing. These problems were initiated by a reduction in private sector construction activity so that, rather than comprising 50 per cent of the market, Government has found itself currently supporting an 865 estimated 70 per cent of the market.

For 2010-11, we have increased the level of Government spending into the construction sector by around 5 per cent, compared with the current year. We have provided for £66 million spending by Government, Statutory Boards and local authorities on local construction activities. I would, however, reiterate my message of yesterday, and remind Hon. Members that there may well have 870 to be a reduction in budgets in the future.

Despite this, there is still the opportunity to maintain long-term average spending, by completing and delivering a higher percentage of this reduced budget. Whether that can be achieved or not will depend, firstly, upon the will and commitment of the Departments involved and, secondly, upon the assistance and important role that the design teams and consultants can 875 provide to Departments in meeting these targets. In order to further understand and address the industry’s concerns, Mr Braidwood, Member for Treasury, will also be meeting with representatives of the Construction Forum in the week ahead, to keep them appraised of the developments in the Capital Programme, and to reinforce the work he is doing with the Departments. 880

Mr President, we will keep this matter under review, and I and my Treasury colleagues will continue to consult closely with the industry during the coming months.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan. 885 Mr Karran: I thank the Shirveishagh Tashtee for his reply, but would he inform this Court,

has he got any ideas as far as new initiatives, in order to maybe free up the development so that we can see the private sector being able to take up more opportunities of lessening the unemployment in the construction industry?

Has the Shirveishagh Tashtee ever thought about some sort of development plan order with a 890 taxation arrangement on it, so that maybe we could create a development plan for the Island, where taxation could be part of that package, in order that we could soak up the unemployed who are coming around the corner from the construction industry, and also look at newly devised ways of developing income for taxation, as far as such a proposal?

895 The President: Mr Bell. The Minister: I would be very interested to hear the Hon. Member’s proposals, Mr President.

If he presents them to me, I am sure they will get a fair hearing.


_________________________________________________________________ 911 T127

I do believe the actions that Treasury has taken, working with DoLGE, DTI, and with the 900 industry itself, I have to say, and Education in particular, which has been a big contributor to local construction work, is starting to bear fruit.

Unemployment has crept up, Mr President: it is up to 2.4 per cent. The January figures showed an increase of 150 taken over the thousand. One third of that unemployment figure related to construction work. We are aware there are growing concerns within the construction industry, but 905 we must keep a sense of proportion. The mid-month figures in February show a reduction again. A lot of the problems in January could well be put down to bad weather, and the problems we have had with snow, which have delayed the start of some of the construction programmes.

We also, in the longer, term, Mr President, have to assess the sustainable size of the construction industry for the Isle of Man in the time ahead. We are suffering still to a certain 910 extent at the moment by the overhang from the peak development periods, four or five years ago, where a whole raft of Government schemes all came on stream at the same time, coinciding with an upturn in the local construction demand. That produced a peak which, clearly, in the medium to long term is unsustainable. So we have to find a way of managing our way through this.

I am endeavouring to do this with Treasury at the moment, by releasing as much possible 915 construction work into the market place. I said yesterday, again, Mr President, there is something like £37 million-worth of housing development alone in the pipeline, which will go into the market in the coming year. So I believe we are doing as much as we can under the present circumstances.

920 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I thank the Shirveishagh for his reply, and I will put something

down, hopefully if I have the resources to, for a motion in Tynwald next month, on some of the proposals that I think should help both Planning and his Department find new income streams for 925 this Island.

The President: Mr Watterson, Hon. Member for Rushen. Mr Watterson: Appreciating what the Treasury Minister said about the sustainable size of the 930

industry, would the Treasury Minister care to comment on initiatives such as the Cooil Road Development Order that is currently out for consultation, which has the potential to release a lot of industrial and retail land at the edge of Douglas; also the plans by the Planning and Building Control department, to undertake Permitted Development Orders, in order to speed up household applications, thus freeing up officers’ time to put a lot more work into speeding up the process for 935 those larger applications?

The President: Mr Bell. The Minister: Two points, Mr President: first of all, in reply to Mr Karran, I would appreciate 940

it, if he is going to take the action he is, if he came to talk to Treasury so that we could actually inform him of what we are doing, before he puts his resolution down. We can then help, perhaps, to inform the resolution that he is putting forward and possibly be able to support it.

In relation to the question from the Hon. Member for Rushen, I appreciated the comments. We are very supportive of the proposals for Cooil Road. In the time ahead, if we are going to diversify 945 the economy, if we are going to look for new opportunities for business to come here, they must have the land and the buildings available to develop into, otherwise they will go elsewhere. I strongly support PDOs. I hope we can do more of it, and perhaps we, one day, might be able to stretch it to high net-worth development as well.

950 The President: Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member. No? Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, can the Shirveishagh just reassure us that, when we talk about any

development plan for industrial land at the Cooil, we make sure that it does not end up in the usual cartels that then keep the prices up, which actually stops the economic generation? 955

Would the Shirveishagh make sure that any viewpoint from the Treasury has the thing of developing this sort of order, so it is an open-door book, so that the likes of the north, the south and the west of the Island can have more developable land, so that we do not end up with these dormitory towns, everything coming into Douglas? Will he make sure that that sort of appraisal, as far as the financial appraisal into any proposal, will make sure that this sort of land is developed, 960


_________________________________________________________________ 912 T127

so that there is industrial land in the north/south, as well as in Douglas, which only adds to the congestion around Douglas?

The President: Mr Bell. 965 The Minister: Once again, Mr President, interesting language from the Hon. Member. I would

only suggest that if he has evidence there is a cartel deliberately forcing up the price of industrial land on the Island, there is an appropriate route to report that, so that it can be investigated.

In terms of the distribution of land availability across the Island, I obviously, as Member for Ramsey, strongly support that. We desperately need more industrial land in the Ramsey area, 970 because we are limited in the development we can pursue there. So I would strongly support any initiative on that front. We need to diversify not just the nature of the sectors of the economy, but also the geographical spread at the same time. I am a hundred per cent behind that.

The President: Mr Karran, make your question direct, sir 975 Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree that, maybe when we do get proper

monopolies legislation, that might be a better word to use, as far as it is concerned? Has the Treasury actually gone out and found out the costings, as far as trying to get business

starter units going, as far as in the Isle of Man, and maybe the north west and other places, and he 980 would see the concerns that people have about a small number of landlords controlling a market – not just in business, but in retail as well?

The President: Mr Bell. 985 The Minister: No.

Gross Domestic Product Agriculture; Laxey Flour Mills; Creamery; Meat Plant

18. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Henderson) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

What percentage of the Gross Domestic Product the agricultural industry represents and how much this is in money; and what percentage of the Gross Domestic Product is represented by the Gross Expenditure and Returns of Laxey Flour Mills, Isle of Man Creameries and the Isle of Man Meat Plant and other allied industries and how much is that in money? 990 The President: Question 18, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my

ennym. 995 The President: Mr Bell. The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, the latest National Income figures

relate to the year 2007-08. In this year, the agricultural industry, alongside forestry and fishing 1000 activity – for that is how the sectors are classified within the National Income accounts – represented £20.69 million or 0.94 per cent of total sectoral income of £2,220.2 million, and the Gross Domestic Product of £2,030.3 million.

The three operations named in the Question have their activities classified within the manufacturing sector. This is considered best international classification practice. Added together, 1005 the best estimate available is that they contributed approximately £3.3 million or 0.15 per cent to the Island’s National Income in 2007-08.

The President: Mr Henderson. 1010 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Would the Treasury Minister agree with me, given his facts and figures that, if the agricultural

industry’s GDP in relation to total National Income and the sectors mentioned in my Question, i.e.


_________________________________________________________________ 913 T127

the Creamery, the Meat Plant and even Laxey Glen Flour Mills, aggregated together – although it might not be best internationally accepted practice, given his criteria for such in his Answer, 1015 Eaghtyrane – nevertheless, if we did publish the gross figure for the entire agricultural industry, we would see a vastly different picture from the minuscule percentages we see now, and therefore we would actually see the true importance of the industry within the economic sector of the Isle of Man?

1020 The President: Minister Bell. The Minister: No, I would not, Mr President. I have answered the Question quite clearly. The figures are here. You cannot skew figures

where an international assessment is made. These are the figures that we have to work within. By 1025 putting the two together, we have 1.09 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product.

The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1030 I am not asking the Shirveishagh, Eaghtyrane, if he can confirm that – and Hansard will bear

me out – to have figures skewed; what I was saying was if we can have them illustrated in some other format for the future here on in, it would be interesting for the public, if he would agree, to note that the industry in its entirety has a somewhat larger income than it is given in its present format. 1035

The President: Mr Bell. The Minister: This is the income of the industry, Mr President.

Gross Domestic Product for agriculture Inclusion of Meat Plant and Creamery

19. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Whether he will arrange for the Economic Affairs Division to include the output of the Meat 1040 Plant and the Creamery in the Gross Domestic Product (‘GDP’) for agriculture and if so (a) what will be the increase in GDP for agriculture; and (b) what will be the decrease in GDP for manufacturing? The President: Question 19, Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan. 1045 Mr Cannan: Acknowledging the answers already given, I would just say to the Treasury

Minister, are they inclusive in ‘agriculture, fisheries and forestry’… Are the fish processing plants also classed as manufacturing, or are they classed as under fishery primary product? Are the –

1050 The President: Mr Cannan, will you allow the Minister to answer your Question first, sir? Mr Cannan: Well, I just had a second part, sir. The President: We have not got to supplementaries yet. 1055 Mr Cannan: I beg your pardon. (Laughter) Well, it is acknowledged – The President: Minister, would you like to answer the Question on the Question Paper in the

name of the Hon. Member for Michael? Mr Bell. 1060 The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): I am confused myself now, Mr President!

(Laughter) Mr Karran: It doesn’t take much – you’re a Minister! (Laughter) 1065


_________________________________________________________________ 914 T127

The Minister: The pressure of the questioning is getting to me! Mr President, in producing the Island’s National Income accounts, the Economic Affairs

Division adopts an internationally accepted classification of economic activities. Within this framework, any activity which involves the processing or semi-processing of basic agricultural 1070 product is classed as being in the manufacturing sector. Taking the point that the Hon. Member has made, I assume that fish processing actually comes under that as well, although I do not have those figures here before me now, Mr President.

The information on which GDP is calculated derives essentially from tax records, from which aggregates of employment, remuneration and company profits are obtained. Whilst Income Tax 1075 Division information systems allow for the identification of profits accruing to individual companies, they do not allow the salaries of employees to be associated with those same individual companies; rather, salaries are assigned to the sectors only. As a consequence, while it is possible to re-categorise those companies’ profits to a different sector, it is not possible with similar accuracy to re-categorise the salaries of its employees so, for personal incomes, only broad 1080 estimates can be made.

With this proviso in mind, and using figures from the most recent accounts relating to 2007-08, I can inform the Hon. Member that the best estimate of the value of GDP that would be reallocated between the two sectors – agriculture and manufacturing – through a switching of the data relating to the Meat Plant and Creamery, is £3 million. 1085

The President: Mr Cannan, supplementary. Mr Cannan: I apologise for before, but acknowledging the Answers already given in

Questions 18 and 19… and I accept what the Treasury Minister said. I am not asking him to skew 1090 any figures; I am just asking him to acknowledge that the agricultural industry and the manufacture of the agricultural product, the fishing industry and the manufacture of those products, and the service industry providing services to agriculture and fisheries are a significant contributor to the Isle of Man’s economy.

I am not asking him to skew any figures; I am asking him whether he, as Treasury Minister, 1095 will acknowledge that those industries and their associated manufacturing industries and service industries are a significant contributor.

The President: Mr Bell. 1100 The Minister: There is a difference, Mr President, between the contribution to GDP and the

overall revenues that it generates for the Island. There is no doubt that the agriculture and fishing industries do make a contribution to the Isle of Man’s economy, albeit much smaller than, perhaps, they have done in the past. But it is still an important niche, which in the present circumstances we need to support and nourish. 1105

The President: Mr Henderson, Hon. Member. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Could the Treasury Minister answer the question that has been posed to him at Questions 18 1110

and 19, now, Eaghtyrane, without looking down his nose at Members, without being demeaning, without being sarcastic and insulting, and just admit or agree that it would be nice for the future, in a little paragraph somewhere, in relation to our economic affairs, and without skewing figures, the additions that Mr Cannan has referred to would be interesting for the public to note, as the agricultural business and fisheries and so on, in their entirety, to show their true worth? 1115

The President: Minister Bell. The Minister: I do find Mr Henderson’s language appalling at times, Mr President. I do not

know what he expects from us. He is asking a Question about the GDP of agriculture: he has got 1120 an Answer of what the GDP of agriculture is. It is not demeaning, I am not insulting, or anything else. I am giving him a straight Answer to the Question I was asked. This is the GDP of the industry.

These figures – the ingredients of the GDP – are not necessarily the same as the wider revenues generated in a general sense. GDP is identified on a much narrower base. I am not 1125 talking down to the Hon. Member. He has asked the Question in the first place; I have given him an Answer, Mr President.


_________________________________________________________________ 915 T127

Government vehicles Fitting of tracking devices

20. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Henderson) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

Whether a UK or off-Island company has been awarded a contract to fit certain Government vehicles with tracking devices and, if so, what was the process that this company had to go through in order to be successful; at what point was the local company supplying this service 1130 told to make an application to tender; and how the prices quoted and specification of equipment offered by the various companies, including fitting of the devices, differed? The President: Question 20, Mr Henderson. 1135 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my

ennym. I beg to ask the Question in my name. The President: Again, I call on the Minister for Treasury, Mr Bell, to reply. 1140 The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, I can advise the Hon. Member that,

following a totally fair and transparent tender process, APD Communications Ltd, an off-Island company, has been awarded the contract for a vehicle-tracking application for the Government. Their status as the preferred supplier was confirmed by the project evaluation team, comprising representatives of the Department of Transport and Information Systems Division (ISD) of 1145 Treasury, on 30th June 2009.

The tender process was conducted in accordance with the financial regulations, and an evaluation undertaken in accordance with set criteria stated within the business requirements specification documentation, against which all suppliers were required to bid and make a presentation to the evaluation team. 1150

A higher level business requirements specification document was formally approved in May 2008, and expressions of interest sought in June 2008. A formal invitation to tender was issued on 9th January 2009, and evaluation of those tenders was undertaken over the period 22nd April 2009 to 15th May 2009.

Mr President, for obvious reasons, I am not able to disclose the pricing information pertinent to 1155 the tender process, due to its commercially sensitive nature. However, I can assure this Hon. Court that full adherence to the financial regulations in this procurement has been observed. In fact, only in the last week has the Clerk to the Public Accounts Committee informed the Treasury Value for Money Committee that their own investigations – that is, the Public Accounts Committee’s investigations – into this matter have found a similar conclusion: namely, that the tender process 1160 was compliant with the financial regulations, and they have advised that no further action is to be taken. Mr President, this is a matter of which I am sure the Hon. Member will be fully aware, as he is a member of that Committee.

As to the equipment itself, I understand that the installation of the tracking devices will now be undertaken by the Department of Transport’s Engineering Works Depot at Ellerslie. 1165

The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Given that I have a declared position on this, as I have a constituency interest – I am acting on 1170

this as a constituency MHK for North Douglas on behalf of my constituents, and have had no part in deliberations – could the Treasury Minister advise, or can he publicly state, that all parties who were invited to make tendering submissions… that it was done so on a level playing field?

Could he confirm – and we have heard the commercial sensitivity issue, Eaghtyrane – and we will bring it out, one way or another, as the months roll on – if, in fact, this award is more costly 1175 than the local service from the small business that had applied to this initially?

The President: Minister. The Minister: Mr President, I have not been involved in this. All I can do is take the assurance 1180

from the Public Accounts Committee, which has investigated the detail of this, that this has been a fair tendering process on a level playing, all applicants have had a fair hearing when their


_________________________________________________________________ 916 T127

application has been put in, and that the Public Accounts Committee concur that this is best value for the taxpayer.

1185 The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, can the Shirveishagh Tashtee tell us, who actually gave the advice to

the Public Accounts Committee, as far as who is the technical man who has the communications skills, who is the technical man who has the IT knowledge, and is it not a fact that until we 1190 actually give the resources to the Public Accounts Committee, it will be usual, like being savaged by a dead sheep and we need to change that?

Would the Shirveishagh, also, where he does have ministerial… the situation is the contract has been awarded, there is no commercial confidentiality now, the issue has gone: is this not just another excuse, so that we cannot actually hold Government to account? Is it not also another 1195 excuse, where we will have a situation where it is all smoke and mirrors, because the fact is that we do not have open and transparent government, the issue has been awarded and all this information should be put into the public domain, so that we can find out what is fact, what is fiction, instead of hiding behind mirrors.

1200 The President: Mr Bell. The Minister: I would hardly say the Public Accounts Committee is hiding behind mirrors. Mr Karran: No, I am talking about you. 1205 The Minister: The Hon. Member has frequently argued for the Public Accounts Committee to

have a higher level of activity in some of these areas. I have not been involved in this scheme: it is a Department of Transport scheme, ISD is involved in it.

I do not know who the advisory panel were. Indeed, if the Hon. Member has questions on that, 1210 I would have thought they would be better directed to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee rather than Treasury. It seems to me that the procedure which has been followed this time is exactly the procedure the Hon. Member for Onchan has been arguing for, for many years.

The President: Mr Houghton, Hon. Member. 1215 Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. Can the Minister inform this Court whether he supports Manx companies, which was what was

extolled to us on a number of occasions yesterday? Can he confirm that? Can he explain why a United Kingdom company was brought in here as a supplier and 1220

favoured for the contract, when a Manx company is already providing high-quality and professional services to other Government Departments without fail, sir?

The President: Minister Bell. 1225 The Minister: I have said, on many occasions, Mr President, and reinforced it in recent times

that it is very important that, wherever possible, we do support on-Island contractors, whatever that service might be.

I have not been involved in this. I do not know the details behind it, but I am content to take the advice from the Public Accounts Committee, which has investigated this and there has been 1230 value gained out of this that the contract was delivered on a level playing field for all tenderers. I cannot really comment beyond that.

The President: Mr Quirk, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Quirk? No? Mr Houghton, then. 1235 Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. Can I ask if the Minister would take the time, now he has got a bit more free time on his hands

after the build up to yesterday etc, to go back to his Department and look into the background papers of this issue and then come back to this Court with a statement at sometime in the future, with his opinion as to whether things are being transacted fairly? 1240

If he would do that and, also, would he look into obvious points on this particular issue, as to whether this United Kingdom company provide on-Island service and back-up facilities; have a


_________________________________________________________________ 917 T127

base on the Isle of Man? Can he just go away, give me an undertaking that he will do that in the interests of fairness in this particular issue?

1245 The President: Mr Bell, I do not know whether you have that information, sir. The Minister: I do not have that information, Mr President. I only repeat, again, this is a

Department of Transport contract. The Public Accounts Committee, which is the appropriate vehicle for reviewing this, has had the opportunity to investigate thoroughly. They are satisfied 1250 with the information they have got. The procedures that have been carried out, as far as I know, we had a letter from the Public Accounts Committee to that end and I cannot see what further benefit would be made by further investigation from Treasury, which is one step removed from the process.

1255 The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. Would the Minister for the Treasury accept the letter from the Public Accounts Committee said

that, as the Value for Money Committee’s investigation had concluded that the tender procedure 1260 complied with financial regulations, it decided that no further action would be taken by the Public Accounts Committee.

The President: Minister. 1265 The Minister: That is the situation, sir. Mr Henderson: Misleading the House! The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. 1270 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not agree, he is here to protect taxpayers’

money and – Mr Houghton: Hear, hear. 1275 Mr Karran: – to protect their interests? Would the Shirveishagh not agree, especially allowing there is the possibility of a doubt –

which everybody knows outside, but we are not talking about in here – that with the growth of the Government spend, it is more important that we have a transparent way of dealing with this issue? 1280 What is the rationale, once a contract has been awarded and we have made up the contract awarded, why is it private and confidentiality have to apply when the contract has been awarded for a specific time? Why is it not in the interests of the taxpayer, and for himself, to be better informed that, unless there are extreme circumstances, all that information should not be put into the public domain, so that if there are queries about the contract then we are not talking at smoking 1285 at mirrors and we are not trying to what…? We know what’s fact, we know what’s fiction –

The President: Mr Karran. Make the point, sir. Mr Karran: – it would help him, as far as being Treasury Minister. 1290 The President: You have made the point, sir. Treasury Minister. The Minister: Mr President, I strongly support as much information as possible being in the 1295

public arena. I do not see that Government gains in the long term. A Member: Hear, hear. The Minister: I do not know the detail behind this: I have not been involved. I am told there is 1300

commercial confidentiality involved with this. Clearly, if that is not the case, if the information now can go in public, then I have no objection to it.


_________________________________________________________________ 918 T127

The President: Mr Houghton. 1305 Mr Houghton: So will the Minister kindly go back to his Department, review this matter and

then would he be good enough to meet with myself and my colleague for North Douglas and explain to us his findings, especially if they are in confidence, sir?

The President: Minister. 1310 The Minister: I am sure the relevant officers in Treasury will be happy to meet with the Hon.

Members at any time. Mr Houghton: Can you arrange it, sir? 1315 The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Cannan: Following on to what the Treasury Minister said, will he now make it a policy

decision of Treasury that, once a contract has been signed and given, then that contract no longer 1320 has commercial confidentiality, that it is open to scrutiny, because only when it is open to scrutiny can everybody be sure that the terms of the contract are beyond all reasonable doubt?

The President: Mr Bell. 1325 Mr Cannan: I accept there is commercial confidentiality in tendering, but once the tender has

been given and approved, what is the trouble? The President: Mr Bell. 1330 The Minister: I have already answered that, Mr President. I believe that, wherever possible, information should be in the public arena. I cannot make a

blanket commitment like that, because there may well be occasions where commercial confidentiality is important, but in a general sense, yes, I think Tynwald and Treasury are supportive of that principle. 1335

The President: Final supplementary. The original questioner, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Would the Shirveishagh agree to arrange a meeting between himself and officers and myself 1340

and Mr Houghton as regards this matter and could he also inform us now, or then, why his section ISD was involved in this process, to start with? Could he confirm that they are one of the biggest single causes of spiralling Government costs and could he confirm that customer questionnaires have actually been undertaken over the past six months to various areas of Government, which have been in receipt of the local service and that those reports came back, in the main, extremely 1345 good?

The President: Minister Bell. The Minister: I have no knowledge of that, Mr President. 1350 As far as ISD is concerned, we have had an independent assessment of the performance of ISD

and, in the main, it has been complimentary about the benefits that come from its activities. It is a very easy whipping boy and has been in this Court for a number of years now and this is no different.

I am happy to arrange a meeting between the Hon. Members – 1355 Mr Houghton: Thank you. The Minister: I have already said that would be relevant. I do not know how many more times

I have got to say it, Mr President. 1360


_________________________________________________________________ 919 T127

Mouchel Parkman Review of IRIS 2007 Discrepancies; review

21. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

If his Department was aware of the typing error which mentioned £4.1 million in the 2007 Mouchel Parkman review document, option 6 for the west, before the document was presented to Tynwald for vote in October 2007 and, if so, whether his Department checked the document and other reports that are based on this document for other financial discrepancies; and in the light of the financial pressures his Department is under and the need for better value for 1365 money, if he would agree to a review of the document in the interest of protecting the taxpayers? The President: Question 21. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 1370 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. The President: Again, the Answer is in the hands of the Minister, Mr Bell. The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, the typing error to which the Hon. 1375

Member refers is in the Mouchel Parkman Report of 2007, prepared on behalf of the Department of Transport as part of their strategic review of the IRIS Master Plan. This matter was, in fact, identified in late 2009 and, as a consequence, has only come to the notice of my officers relatively recently.

I should like to emphasise, at the outset, the error does not affect in any material way the 1380 conclusions or recommendations of this Report. The work of Mouchel Parkman was, by its very nature, a feasibility study and, as such, it was a broadbrush exercise. The strategic conclusions drawn from the Report have subsequently been tested in greater detail by the more recent and detailed study undertaken by ACOM, the consultants who are presently developing the design and procurement strategy for the future phases of IRIS. As such, the more detailed review suggested 1385 by the Hon. Member for Onchan has, in effect, already taken place during the execution phase of that design process. The more detailed design work by ACOM has not led them or the Department to question the conclusions or the recommendations of the Mouchel Parkman Report for the west of the Island.

One point on which I am in total agreement with the Hon. Member for Onchan is the need to 1390 achieve best value for money for the taxpayer and, in that regard, I believe the development of a regional sewage treatment strategy and the options chosen for the delivery across the Island, will meet our aims in that respect.

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. 1395 Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh for such a serious answer, I am thankful that we have

had the Member for Drainage actually inform this Hon. Court, as far as that issue is concerned, which is a good move – it is a shame that we have got to take so much abuse, in order to try and get these things done. 1400

But would the Shirveishagh not agree with the fact that there are concerns about issues as far as the Peel to Crosby pipeline, in option 6, which appears to be overestimated by £2.7 million and should read £7.67 million and not £10.38 million?

Does the Shirveishagh not agree that these sorts of issues need to be addressed, and maybe if I could get representation from other parties to discuss these issues with his staff in his Department 1405 to make sure that we are actually spending money correctly, as far as the calculations, as far as this is concerned? Are we to see an open door as far as that is concerned?

The President: Minister. 1410 The Minister: Mr President, I obviously do not have the detailed figures relating to every

aspect of the IRIS scheme in front of me, so I cannot comment on the Hon. Member’s claims. Treasury’s door is always open, Mr President, and the Hon. Member uses it on occasions, and

is very welcome to come and discuss whatever concerns he has. 1415 The President: Mr Karran.


_________________________________________________________________ 920 T127

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I thank the Shirveishagh for his reply, but if it is a matter of not

myself: would the Minister not agree I cannot be fully informed on all the things that are wrong with Government, no more than he could be fully informed on what is the spending situations, as 1420 far as Treasury is concerned, but if we can make representations with people who have concerns, in order to make sure that we are actually getting the correct facts, other individuals, is that open as far as that facility, not myself?

The President: Minister. 1425 The Minister: Mr President, the Hon. Member is the representative of people of the Isle of

Man who I am sure will express their views very clearly. The President: Mr Quirk, Hon. Member for Onchan. 1430 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. I wonder whether the Minister for Treasury would agree with me that, if there were any

concerns from any individual – and I know the letter was circulated regarding this – if we get to the nub of the matter and if Mr Karran has concerns about an individual who actually visited the 1435 Department, he would be better to explain who the individual is and say why he has an interest in that particular area? Would the Minister not agree with that?

The President: Mr Bell. 1440 The Minister: That would be very helpful, Mr President.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY

Fisheries Management Agreement Representation of Island fishing industry

22. The Hon. Member for Peel (Mr Crookall) to ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry:

Given that his Department is negotiating with the UK to change the Fisheries Management Agreement that could extend the power of Tynwald from the 3-mile to the 12-mile limit, if he thinks that it is fitting that Government officials, if government restructuring proposals go through, from the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure will represent the Island’s 1445 fishing industry? The President: Question 22. Mr Crookall. Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. 1450 I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. The President: On this occasion, I call Mr Gawne, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and

Forestry. 1455 The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu,

Eaghtyrane. Clearly, things have changed since the Hon. Member for Peel originally tabled his Question.

Either DAFF or the proposed ‘DEFA’ – Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture – are clearly more obviously representative of the fishing industry. 1460

Negotiations with the four UK administrations regarding a revised Fisheries Management Agreement are being led by a team of officials from DAFF, the Chief Minister’s Office and the Attorney General’s Chambers. I also met directly with the Welsh, Northern Irish and DEFRA Fisheries Ministers to discuss the agreement in November and December respectively.

It may be worth noting that changes in departmental structures in the four UK administrations 1465 mean that Manx civil servants meet their counterparts from the Department for the Environment,


_________________________________________________________________ 921 T127

Food and Rural Affairs, from Marine Scotland, from the Department for Rural Development in Northern Ireland, and the Department for Rural Affairs in Wales. The change of departmental responsibilities and titles within those administrations has led to no tangible changes in negotiations or the robust approach that UK officials are taking to these negotiations. 1470

I have every confidence that the negotiation position of myself, and officials representing the Isle of Man, will not be weakened by the proposed changes to the structure of Government and remain confident that the outcome will be a more equitable Fisheries Management Agreement, much more suited to the needs of the Isle of Man and to Manx fishermen.

Gura mie eu. 1475 A Member: Hear, hear. The President: Mr Crookall. 1480 Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. Can I just get the Minister, then, to clarify that what he is saying is that he is reasonably happy

with the removal of the name ‘Fisheries’ from the departmental title, even though the Treasury Minister said, just recently, answering another Question, that the fisheries has an important niche in the Isle of Man GDP, and there are still hundreds of people involved in the fishing, whether it is 1485 fishing and processors or retailers who would still like to see – as did the farmers – the fisheries title retained somewhere in the Department name.

The President: Minister, Mr Gawne. 1490 The Minister: The Question was specifically about how my Department could negotiate with

other administrations and Departments responsible for fisheries. My view is absolutely clear: that, regardless of the title, the officers and, indeed, Minister and political Members will negotiate as hard as possible and will work in the best interests of the industries that they are there to represent.

Whether I personally think that is a good idea to have ‘fisheries’ or ‘agriculture’ in a title is 1495 neither here nor there. I think the crucial thing for me is that we have ‘food’ in the title of the new Department, because food clearly covers all of the food production industries on the Isle of Man. It is absolutely essential that we wake up to the importance, particularly of food security. Perhaps not for the next 5 to 10 years but, certainly, as we move through this century, there is absolutely clear evidence from anywhere you are prepared to look, in terms of food policy, that food production is 1500 going to be vital as we progress through the century.

The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member. Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. 1505 Would the Minister not agree with me that the difficulty of negotiating is that, at one time,

negotiations to do with the territorial waters of fishing were with a single body and the problems are now that powers have been devolved to Scotland and Wales and this has resulted now in negotiations having to take place separately with these individual administrations?

1510 The President: Minister, Mr Gawne. The Minister: Gura mie eu. I thank my current Fisheries Member for the question. Clearly the overall responsibility for

saying yea or nay with regard to a fisheries management agreement still lies with the Secretary of 1515 State and DEFRA. However, as a result of devolution, the involvement of the other three fisheries administrations has become much more significant in these discussions and the involvement of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish fisheries ministers have made for more interesting discussions.

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. 1520 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not agree it is all very well the Hon. Member

for Peel’s question here came out of his shell, as far as this issue is concerned, but would the Shirveishagh not agree that with the motion I put down last month with UNCLOS and the EEZ, this is also another way of dealing with this issue? I do hope that he will be putting pressure on 1525 through the Council of Ministers to get his staff, through the Chief Secretary’s Office, to actually come back with a definitive answer, so that we can actually get on with it and maybe this is


_________________________________________________________________ 922 T127

another way of helping Government, as far as broadening its economic basis, as far as the economy is concerned.

1530 The President: Minister for Agriculture, Mr Gawne. The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I have to make a comment on the somewhat abusive comment made by the Hon. Member for

Onchan there about the Hon. Member for Peel. It seems that it is quite unacceptable for anyone to 1535 have a go at the Hon. Member for Onchan and yet he can use abusive language like that about the Hon. Member for Peel. I think that is unfortunate and I hope that he will apologise to the Hon. Member for Peel.

With regard to Mr Karran’s previous motion, I am sure that is being considered and I am sure that Council of Ministers will report back if that was what we agreed to do. 1540

Mr Karran: Further supplementary. The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran. 1545 Mr Karran: Can the Shirveishagh inform this Hon. Court, how often have they met, as far as

this issue is concerned, allowing for the fact that this is of mutual importance, in looking at another way of developing the protection of the fishing industry, as far as the Isle of Man is concerned? Is it not the case that no work has been done up to now, as far as my motion is concerned, because there have been other pressures, as far as the staff within the Council of Ministers? Would he not 1550 agree that the proposal that has been put there, through UNCLOS and the EEZ, is another way of tackling this problem that, unfortunately, he has inherited from before he was ever a Member of this Hon. Court, but we need to get the pressure on, so that we do not have the excuses when you are supposed to report back to this Hon. Court?

1555 The President: Minister. The Minister: I am not fully sure which issue the Hon. Member for Onchan is referring to. He

has introduced a new issue which is nothing to do with the Question, which was his motion. If it is that issue, I am aware that work has been done on that particular issue. 1560

If it is how many meetings we have had with regard to negotiations of the Fisheries Management Agreement, I can say that I could not count the number on two hands: a huge number of meetings have taken place, lots of communication, and I believe we are making good progress on that.

With regard to the Hon. Member for Onchan’s motion, I am aware that work has taken place 1565 on that, and I look forward to discussing it at some point, either in the Council of Ministers or in Tynwald.

The President: Question 23 – 1570 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, why did the staff, then – ? The President: Question 23 – Mr Karran! Mr Karran: Why did the staff, then, say they had no time to do it? 1575 The President: Mr Karran.

HOME AFFAIRS

Deputy Chief Constable Current duties

23. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

What are the current duties of the Deputy Chief Constable?


_________________________________________________________________ 923 T127

The President: Question 23. Mr Cannan. 1580 Mr Cannan: I beg to ask the Question standing in my name, sir. The President: Minister for Home Affairs to reply, please. Mr Earnshaw. 1585 The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Earnshaw): Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The Deputy Chief Constable is currently working in the Chief Secretary’s Office as part of a

career development that my Department has put in place for him. The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. 1590 Mr Cannan: Will the Minister for Home Affairs indicate how long the Deputy Chief

Constable has been working in the Chief Secretary’s Office and what the terms of this work in the Chief Secretary’s Office are?

1595 The President: Mr Earnshaw. The Minister: Yes. I am happy to do that, Eaghtyrane. He has been working there for approximately a month, I would say now. I do not know the

precise date that he started there, but his brief is, he is required to do three things: firstly, to group 1600 the activities of the public service into a number of key themes; secondly, to identify tasks from those themes that will be of critical importance if the restructuring is to take effect on time; and thirdly, to create an appropriate framework within which implementation of the work can be undertaken at 1st April, should today’s motion succeed.

1605 The President: Mr Cannan. Mr Cannan: Could the Minister for Home Affairs explain how these duties are consistent with

the training of the Deputy Chief Constable for police matters, and is he of the opinion that the Police Force no longer has a requirement for a Deputy Chief Constable, or the duties of the 1610 Deputy Chief Constable can be incorporated into the lower rank under the existing title of Deputy Chief Constable?

The President: Minister Earnshaw. 1615 The Minister: That is a fair question, Eaghtyrane. I am quite content that there is a need for a Deputy Chief Constable. It is anticipated that this

work is only going to be of a short-term nature and it has been seen as a development opportunity, as I said in my opening response. It was decided that the nature of the work that was involved best fitted the skills and experience that the Deputy Chief Constable has. That is why he was chosen, 1620 particularly in regard to the management of change, management of projects where deadlines were important, and where tasking and co-ordinating is required.

The President: Mr Cregeen, Member for Malew and Santon. 1625 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. As the Minister has just confirmed that the Deputy is acting up, can he circulate the costs to his

Department of all officers acting up to this position? The President: Minister. 1630 The Minister: I think I have got the response to that now, Eaghtyrane, so I do not need to do

that. It is anticipated that the costs in total for this exercise will be less than £10,000. I would

anticipate that the Deputy Chief Constable… and this is with the Chief Secretary’s Office, not 1635 directly the Department of Home Affairs, but I would expect it to end probably within a month’s time, and if we are unsuccessful with the motion today, it will probably end even more quickly.

The President: Mrs Christian, Hon. Member of Council.


_________________________________________________________________ 924 T127

Mrs Christian: My question has just been answered. 1640 The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member. Mr Turner: Yes, it is linked to the question, Mr President, that the Hon. Member for Malew

and Santon has asked, but I am not quite sure the Minister fully answered what I was looking for, 1645 which is: has the Deputy Chief Constable’s post been backfilled; how many subsequent posts below his position have been backfilled as a consequence of this; and has this increased the wage cost of the Department?

The President: I think he said it all had… and it was £10,000. Minister Earnshaw? 1650 Mr Turner: It was not clear. The Minister: Well, the post has been temporarily backfilled by Superintendent Paul Cubbon.

He has performed the duties of the Deputy Chief Constable on a temporary basis. 1655 As I have said, I think this will probably… it is anticipated it will be about two months overall,

this role, and I hope it is a successful one. The President: Mr Lowey. 1660 Mr Lowey: Yes, could the Minister tell the Court, who chose the Deputy Chief Constable for

this onerous task? Can I draw his attention to the problems of getting the Police involved in what I would call

civilian matters, career development or not, and is he aware of the problems that have arisen in Jersey, with the Chief Constable and politicians? Is there not a principle here, where Police should 1665 not be seen to be involved in what we would call current political matters?

The President: Mr Earnshaw, Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister: Yes, once again, a very fair question. I think the matter was considered, about 1670

the political impact, and it was decided there was no conflict there. It was discussed in depth with the Chief Constable that that conflict did not exist. He was content, and the temporary appointment was made from that.

So I am quite relaxed about that and, as far as I am aware, the Chief Secretary’s Office is quite relaxed about that, and the Chief Minister as well. He was identified as the best person for the task. 1675

The President: Mr Cregeen, Member for Malew and Santon. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. The Minister mentioned that officers were acting up. Is there no provision that these officers 1680

can act up without additional pay for a certain period? Is it true that one officer is actually getting paid the additional rate, whilst he is still on holiday for two weeks?

The President: Mr Earnshaw. 1685 The Minister: I am not quite sure that I understand the second part of the question. I think what we have got to appreciate, Eaghtyrane, is the Police Force is functioning very well

at the moment. There are development opportunities needed for officers. I think this fits in well with the Deputy Chief Constable’s work profile. His job is principally a management job within the Police Force – not so much feeling collars at his level. It is about managing the Force, and I 1690 think this will enhance the skills and make the Police, hopefully, perform even better in the future.

The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Cannan: Following on Mr Lowey’s supplementary, is there not a complete conflict of 1695

interest that a Deputy Chief Constable, subject to police disciplinary powers, is now involved in political and executive Government matters in the Chief Secretary’s Office?

If the structure of Government is approved, he will continue to be employed in the Chief Secretary’s Office, giving political direction to the functions of Government and civil servants.


_________________________________________________________________ 925 T127

How does this square with a man holding an office under the Crown and subject to Police 1700 discipline?

The President: Mr Earnshaw, Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister: With all respect to the Hon. Member for Michael, I think he is trying to make 1705

something out of this that is not there. We do not believe there is a conflict of interest, and the Constabulary has a long history of

assisting in the delivery of parliamentary and Government papers of significant importance, where time is critical. The Constabulary likes to work co-operatively with the rest of Government. I think that is a demonstration of that. 1710

As I have already said, this will be short term, and already I think somebody is shadowing the Deputy Chief Constable, who was not available to do this role, I understand, earlier on, so that person will be able to step into his shoes, hopefully in a few weeks’ time.

The President: Mrs Christian, Hon. Member of Council. 1715 Mrs Christian: Could the Minister indicate whether any other officers from his Department

are pursuing career development programmes in the Chief Secretary’s Office, and whether there are any associated costs?

1720 The President: Minister. The Minister: Yes, Mr Will Greenhow, the Chief Executive of the Department of Home

Affairs, is undertaking a career development opportunity, shadowing Mrs Mary Williams. That is anticipated to last, I think, until TT week. 1725

The President: Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member for Malew and Santon. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. Was it a recommendation from the Chief Executive of the DHA that the Deputy Chief 1730

Constable should act up in this position? To clarify the point earlier on that the Minister was not sure on, was one officer asked to act up

in a position and agreed, then subsequently went on holiday and you were paying for somebody at higher grade, whilst they were on holiday? Should it not be for the time they are working?

1735 The President: Minister. The Minister: I am afraid I have not got that level of detail that the Hon. Member is

requesting. I am in danger of repeating myself, really, Eaghtyrane. I just want to apologise to Mrs Christian, the Hon. Member of Council, if she was referring to 1740

any other police officers; I thought she was just referring to (Mrs Christian: No.) officers of Government. (Mrs Christian: Costs.)

I do not think there are any extra costs involved to my Department regarding that former question. So, hopefully, I have answered Mr Cregeen as well.

Jurby Prison Use of education and work facilities

24. The Hon. Member for Douglas East (Mr Braidwood) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

If he is satisfied that the improved educational and work facilities at the new prison at Jurby 1745 are being utilised to their full potential? The President: Question 24. Mr Braidwood. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. 1750 I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.


_________________________________________________________________ 926 T127

The President: Mr Earnshaw. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Earnshaw): Thank you, Eaghtyrane. 1755 The President: Mr Earnshaw, apologies, sir, but would you mind speaking up a bit? The Minister: I beg your pardon? (Laughter) 1760 The President: Would you mind speaking up? Good point! The Minister: I am struggling with my voice a little bit this morning, and I am a bit further

away from the microphone than some! Yes, Eaghtyrane, I will do my best. Headway has been made with this issue, although to describe myself as ‘satisfied’ would be 1765

less than accurate, as I regard the matter as work in progress. The new work facilities are not as yet being used to their full potential.

So, in short, am I satisfied? The answer is not yet. The President: Mr Braidwood. 1770 Mr Braidwood: I thank the Minister for his short reply, but is he aware that there is a shortage

of suitable people to teach prisoners who are willing to partake in educational projects? The President: Minister. 1775 The Minister: Yes, I am aware of that. It is a gap that I am eager to plug. It is something I am

taking a personal interest in. Since the Hon. Member for Peel, Mr Crookall, ceased to be a member of my Department, I have taken on direct responsibility for matters at the Prison. I have regular meetings with the Prison Governor and I am conscious of this. I am eager to get to a better 1780 solution than this.

The Prison at Jurby offers much better educational opportunities than the former Prison at Victoria Road offered. As a former Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Member for Douglas East will be well aware of the shortcomings in Victoria Road Prison. So this is a far better facility, and we would like to get on with it as soon as we possibly… Well, we are getting on with it. We are 1785 making progress. I do not want to give the impression that we are not. We are doing a lot better. I am eager to see us do a lot better still.

The President: Mr Braidwood. 1790 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. Can the Minister confirm that, during the summer months, there is a hiatus of between five and

six weeks when no educational facilities are available to the prisoners? Would it be possible for those prisoners who are classified and able to… who are learning IT and studying for GCSEs, that they would have access to computers? 1795

The President: Minister. The Minister: Yes, there is a hiatus at the moment, but my brief here tells me that the

academic year for the Prison will be extended from 34 weeks to 42 weeks in 2010-11, so that is 1800 some progress. That is within existing resources. It is hoped that this can be increased to 44 weeks in 2011-12.

What prisoners may be able to have access to in an unsupervised fashion, I am not quite sure. I think that is something that I would have to have discussion with the Prison Governor, and ultimately it will be her decision about what takes place in that respect. 1805

The President: Mr Braidwood, finally, sir. Mr Braidwood: Yes, Mr President, I will try to make it my final supplementary. This is really on the work facilities. The Minister has already said that there is very little scope 1810

for work at the moment at the Prison. In other establishments in the UK, a lot of the prisoners are able to dismantle computers, to take out the valuable components. They also make, in some prisons, pallets and there is other work which they can do. It seems unfortunate that, at the present


_________________________________________________________________ 927 T127

time, the Prison in Jurby is unable to allow the prisoners… or there is no work coming in from commercial enterprises in the Island. 1815

The President: Minister. The Minister: That is fair comment, Eaghtyrane, and I think the Prison Governor has told me

that, at the Prison, they are eager to take on work that can be performed inside the Prison. 1820 In the past, prisoners used to go outside on work parties: that is no longer a practical

proposition in the way that it once was. But the facilities are there to make and manufacture certain things. I hope I can use this moment to do a bit of advertising: I would like to appeal to anybody who might be listening to this to perhaps come forward and let me know – if they contact me at the Department of Home Affairs, I would be interested to talk to them, and I can put them in 1825 touch with the Prison.

I am also interested in people who might be volunteers: perhaps recently retired tradesmen who may be able to give up some of their spare time to help some of the prisoners who, in a lot of cases, are young men who may not have a lot of skills already. So it may be an opportunity to develop something along those lines. 1830

I would just like to say, with some of the courses, it is not easy to run the courses at the Prison, because you cannot always dovetail the length of the course to the length of the sentence. People are moving into and out of prison all the time, and if you have, let us say, a 20-week course, some people may be able to do only a portion of that course, either because they arrive halfway through it or they leave halfway through it. 1835

The President: Mr Waft, Hon. Member of Council. Mr Waft: Would the Minister agree with me that the facilities at the new Prison are a

thousand per cent better than they were in the old Prison – 1840 Mr Lowey: They were non-existent. Mr Waft: – where the education facilities were held in one small room? The education

facilities that we have at the moment are second to none, and the educationalists are in the process 1845 of filling in the gaps at this present time.

The President: Minister. The Minister: Yes, I very much agree with that. I think that ties in with a lot of things that I 1850

have been saying. I am eager to make progress in this respect, and I am sure the Hon. Member for East Douglas

is, as well, because he was involved when the Prison was planned at Jurby. That was very much a part of his bag at the time, so he will be as eager as I am, I am sure, to see success come out of this. 1855

Police vetting system DHA Minister’s failure to make a statement

25. The Hon. Member for Rushen (Mr Gill) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

Further to Question 43 for Written Answer at the October 2009 sitting of this Court and Item 11 on the Order Paper for this sitting, why he has failed to make either: (i) an interim statement about the ‘current discussions’ with the UK authorities; or (ii) a statement to this sitting of the Court about such discussions? 1860 The President: Question 25. Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. The President: Again, I call Mr Earnshaw, Minister for Home Affairs. 1865


_________________________________________________________________ 928 T127

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Earnshaw): Yes, thank you, Eaghtyrane. In answer to the Hon. Member for Rushen’s Question, matters have only recently progressed to

their present state and I therefore, with regret, have been unable to provide a meaningful statement to this Hon. Court ahead of preparing the paperwork which will be considered later this sitting. 1870

Independent Safeguarding Authority, UK Definition of ‘harm’


Further to Item 11 on the Order Paper for this sitting, if he will define the word ‘harm’ as used by the UK ISA in assessing the ‘physical, emotional, financial or developmental harm to a child’? The President: Question 26. Mr Gill 1875 Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. The President: Minister, Mr Earnshaw. 1880 The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Earnshaw): Thank you, Eaghtyrane. My brief tells me that ‘harm’ means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development,

including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. The President: Mr Gill. 1885 Mr Gill: Will the Minister confirm that that definition is the working definition of the ISA in

the UK, sir? The President: Mr Earnshaw. 1890 The Minister: Yes, I have got some things that have definitions in my paperwork here:

‘development’ means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development; ‘health’ means physical or mental health; ‘ill-treatment’ includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical. The definition of harm that the ISA would use in relation to children 1895 would be that defined under section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989, which was subsequently amended in the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

So, I hope that helps answer the Question.

TTFMAG Details of safety co-ordination position

27. The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon (Mr Cregeen) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

Whether the advertised position on TTFMAG for safety co-ordination is a new position; what is the budget for this position; and how long is this position required for? 1900 The President: We turn to Question 27 and I call on the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon,

Mr Cregeen. Mr Cregeen: Mr President, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. 1905 The President: Again, Mr Earnshaw, please. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Earnshaw): Thank you, Eaghtyrane.


_________________________________________________________________ 929 T127

I believe it is important to make it clear that the TTFMAG safety co-ordination is not a 1910 position. It is an ad hoc consultative service to assist motorsport organisers to deliver safe and successful motorsport events in the Isle of Man.

The contract is, therefore, new and is for a period of 12 months, with a budget of £50,000. At the end of this period, the ongoing requirements of the service will be reviewed by my Department, in conjunction with partner organisations. 1915

The President: Mr Cregeen. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. As this is an ad hoc service, when the advert went out, were all applicants advised about the 1920

value of this service or was it left blank? The President: Mr Earnshaw. The Minister: I am not quite sure what the Hon. Member means by ‘value’ for this service – 1925

perhaps he could explain a little more. The President: Mr Cregeen. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. 1930 The £50,000: was there a fee range in the advert, or was that left for people to judge the service

they would provide? The President: Mr Earnshaw. 1935 The Minister: Well, I think the latter is the case: I do not think it was specific, as far as I

recall. I have not got a copy of the advert here, but I do not think it had specific comment regarding finance.

The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member of Council. 1940 Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. With reference to the TTFMAG, does the Minister recall the Chief Constable informing

Members that he intends the Police to withdraw from this group? For reference, it was in Mr Houghton’s meeting; and if so, when will this be? 1945

The President: Mr Earnshaw. The Minister: I do not remember the Chief Constable saying he will withdraw from the group.

I would hope – (Mr Turner: He did.) I am not sure if he said he will or he might, so if you are 1950 asking me can I remember, that is how I remember it.

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, does the Shirveishagh Cooishyn Sthie, the Minister for Home 1955

Affairs, not agree that a Question from the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon deserves him to have the full information in this Hon. Court?

Does he feel that the issue, as far as his confusion is concerned, is because many people outside this Court have the concern that this was a done deal, long before it was his concern, and is this the reason why there is such confusion and amnesia, as far as Minister is concerned in 1960 replying to this Question?

The President: Mr Earnshaw. The Minister: Well, I am not confused; it was a question of recollection. So that is not 1965

confusion. The answer to the rest of the Hon. Member’s question is no. The President: Mr Cregeen. 1970


_________________________________________________________________ 930 T127

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. Will the Minister circulate the job specification that people had to apply to? Does he consider

10 days’ notice to make a presentation to this group sufficient for people who would be wishing to apply for the job?

1975 The President: Mr Earnshaw. The Minister: Yes, I will be content to circulate the job specification, if that is what the Hon.

Member wants. As far as the 10 days is concerned, I have got to say I do not involve myself in the micro-1980

management of the Department, or I try not to, so I cannot really say whether that is an appropriate time or not.

The President: Mr Cregeen. 1985 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. Would the Minister not agree that this was a very contentious issue, as he and other Ministers

met with Members up in the Barrool Suite, with the Chief Constable and Chief Executives? So should he not have kept himself abreast of what was going on?

1990 The President: Minister. The Minister: It certainly was a contentious issue for some, but not everybody. A lot of people

were content with the status quo, I think. (Mr Cregeen: Name?) (Laughter) But it was something that we did properly and appropriately. It was in response to the concerns of Members. 1995

The appointment could have gone ahead a lot earlier than it did, but we decided to pull back from that, and tender or advertise the role and do it in a proper way, in that respect. It did not need to be… It was within Treasury limitations to have just granted the role and the contract without that process taking place.

2000 The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member. Mr Turner: Mr President, can the Minister confirm whether the person who has this role for

safety co-ordination holds any ACU or MSA licences or permits relevant to this role? 2005 The President: Minister. The Minister: It is not part of my brief, so I cannot answer that. The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. 2010 Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh circulate the answer, since he has not got the information

here? Would the Shirveishagh not also agree that… does he class a new post being established at

£50,000 as part of micro-management, as far as these issues are concerned; and does he not feel 2015 that there is a legitimate thing from, maybe, a parliamentary investigation into the whole handling of this proposal, in order to clarify what is fact and what is fiction, as far as that, and would his Department support such a move?

The President: Minister, Mr Earnshaw. 2020 The Minister: I do not really think that is necessary. It is a one-year contract, and I think it

will be reviewed at the end of that period of time. I did not say it would be £50,000; I said there is a budget for £50,000, so I think Members are hearing what they want to hear on this particular one. I think it will be short-term, but I see this role being handled in due course in another way. 2025

The President: Mr Quayle, Hon. Member for Middle. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President.


_________________________________________________________________ 931 T127

Could I ask my hon. friend and colleague from Council to make it clear that he had advised 2030 Members of Tynwald by e-mail that the position would be advertised, ahead of the meeting that took place in the Barrool Suite?

The President: Minister. 2035 The Minister: Yes, I am grateful to the Minister for Tourism and Leisure for reminding me of

that. That is the case. The President: And a final supplementary, Mr Cregeen. 2040 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. The Minister stated that he could have gone ahead with this appointment without advertising

the job. Is the person the same one who you could have appointed without it going to advert; and as your Chief Executive mentioned to me prior to the meeting in the Barrool Suite, the contract had already been drawn up for this specific person. 2045

The President: Minister. The Minister: I can confirm that this job could have been… the appointment could have been

made without advertising, within Treasury financial directives, regarding that. The person who 2050 was ultimately appointed to this was the person who would originally have been appointed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Planning Division decisions Workload; time to process; reducing delays

28. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Local Government and the Environment:

If he will make a statement on what the existing workload is for staff in the Planning Division; how long the planning process should last, from the planning application to the final decision; whether his Department is satisfied with the planning process and the length of time it takes; and whether he has any initiatives in order to resolve the problems regarding delays in 2055 reaching speedy decisions? The President: Question 28. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. 2060 The President: This time I turn to the Minister for Local Government and the Environment,

Mr Shimmin, to reply. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr 2065

President. As measured simply by the number of planning applications received, the workload in 2009

was lower than in 2008. The figure of 2,122 applications in 2009 compared to 2,361 the previous year. This is still high in terms of applications per planning officer, when compared with their counterparts in any other jurisdiction. 2070

The development procedure order requires that an initial decision should be made within eight weeks of a planning application being received, but there is no prescribed period for the appeal process. In my view, the eight-week period should be achievable for routine applications which have been properly prepared, but for some time has proved unrealistic for more complex applications. The Department believes that, in most cases, applications are being determined as 2075 efficiently as the current system and current resources allow. However, it is also strongly of the opinion that its resources would be better directed, if, as was proposed in the Report to Tynwald, the scope of permitted development were to be increased significantly.


_________________________________________________________________ 932 T127

Finally, the planning process will be made more efficient and more effective, if the proposals in the Department’s Report are implemented. Some, including the prioritisation of key 2080 applications are in hand, whilst others will require approval from this Court, including revised secondary legislation and, in due course, the establishment of a firm, up-to-date policy framework in the form of area plans.

Mr President, as committed already, a fuller statement will be made in July. 2085 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, while thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply, does he feel that the

appeals process should have some sort of time period in order to try and get these issues dealt with quicker? What resources would happen as far as that is concerned? 2090

I thank the Shirveishagh for his letter to do with review of the planning system of 10th February, but does he not feel that we have got to start looking at other ways of trying to address it before July?

The President: Mr Shimmin, Minister for Local Government. 2095 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I think it is fair to say that, within my Department, the planning area is the one which causes

the greatest level of workload, demand and pressure on myself and my senior officer to try and make improvements that are both acceptable to the population and are within the laws of the 2100 planning, as we have them at the moment. The appeals process is an issue which goes outside of my Department, as soon as there has been a determination which a repeal is requested. It then goes to the Chief Secretary’s Office and that is a process that, at that stage, is out of our hands.

I think the general, underlying question the Hon. Member and many others make, is the speed and time it takes to get through to a completed decision. That is something which we are 2105 continuing to look at, and will be looking at, on a weekly, if not daily, basis between now and July and anything we can bring forward more quickly would be done.

However, the fact that I have been there three years and have failed to resolve this does indicate either I am not up to the job or the job is quite complex, Mr President.

2110 The President: Question… Hon. Member, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply and allowing that he has got major

problems in his Department, does he not feel, in the light of Question 17 and the pressures that are going to be on the capital programme, maybe not so much this year, but next year, that trying to 2115 get this issue resolved before July would be very good: has he made any representations to the Chief Secretary’s Office of getting them to do their part of the deal to try and speed up the appeals system? If not, would he consider, maybe, that the Chief Secretary needs to try and find a more efficient way of getting independent inspectors to do it in a more reasonable time, allowing for the fact I do not want him to follow one previous Minister’s statement, that if the independent 2120 inspectors do not give us the decision we want, we will not employ them again. I know he would not follow that policy.

The President: Mr Shimmin. 2125 The Minister: I am not sure, Mr President, as to whether criticism of the appeal process is

actually the right area to be focusing on, but I will take on board the comments of the Member and speak to him outside the Court to see if there are specific areas. Normally, the process is one whereby the delay, if at all, may be within my Department to get to the initial determination. After that, if there is an appeal process put in place, it is then purely a case of getting sufficient appeals 2130 together to justify bringing over an inspector.

Certainly with regard to the capital programme, my Department is attempting to deliver approximately 85% of our own capital scheme this year. We are in constant dialogue with the construction forum and construction people to realise the importance of that and we have to make sure that we do not overly encourage developments that would be inappropriate, but to keep 2135 moving quickly for those that will actually benefit, housing particularly, but also the construction industry. So we do attempt to move that forward and I am grateful for the conversation I had with the Hon. Member in the last couple of days, where we might work together on moving forward some of these initiatives.


_________________________________________________________________ 933 T127

Lord Street hotel development Start date; reasons for delay; cost

29. The Hon. Member of Council (Mr Lowey) to ask the Minister for Local Government and the Environment:

(a) when is the proposed new hotel development at Lord Street bus site planned to start; 2140 (b) what are the reasons for the delay; and (c) how much has this proposal cost to date? The President: Question 29. Hon. Member, Mr Lowey, please. 2145 Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. The President: Again, the Answer is in the hands of the Minister for Local Government and

the Environment, Mr Shimmin. 2150 The Minister for Local Government and the Environment (Mr Shimmin): Mr President,

the approval of the heads of terms presented to the Court in October 2009 gave the Quayside Working Group the authority necessary to continue discussions with the developer and represented a significant step towards the future realisation of the much anticipated Douglas quayside development scheme. 2155

During the next stage of the consultation process, more detailed negotiations are required with Askett Hawk Developments (Isle of Man) Ltd and their legal representatives regarding the drafting of the development agreement. It is envisaged that a further four to six months of negotiation will be necessary before the final development agreement is produced and it will be some considerable time after this before the developer is likely to be able to be in a position to give an indication of 2160 when, or indeed if, they are able to commence on site.

In real terms, the developer will, in effect, have a maximum of four years from exchange of the development agreement to fulfil some onerous conditions and, for the Department’s protection, there are also opportunities for the landowner to terminate the agreement at appropriate points. By including these, we are giving ourselves the scope to ensure the site is not sterilised unnecessarily. 2165

Mr President, the conditions are typical for a development scheme of this mixed-use type and, as should be appreciated, it can be an extremely difficult and protracted process to ensure that all issues and potential pitfalls are being carefully considered and addressed. Two consultancy companies, namely Drivers Jonas and Cains have been directly employed at various times during the past five and a half years to provide independent commercial advice to the Quayside Working 2170 Group. The cost of these services and expenses provided during the five-year period amount to a total of £263,177.34. All payments have been made in accordance with Isle of Man Government financial regulations.

The President: Mr Lowey. 2175 Mr Lowey: Would the Minister not agree that five and a half years is rather a long time to be

developing the prime site, the gateway to the Isle of Man? While we talk about developing Douglas and making it a better place, would he not agree that that particular site and adjacent land on the other side, which the Minister is not responsible for, has been talked about being 2180 redeveloped and yet nothing has happened?

To be told today that it would be a considerable… six months before we finish the re-consideration, would he not agree that that would be nearly six years before we are talking about doing something – is this an acceptable speed for development of the gateway to the Isle of Man?

2185 The President: Mr Shimmin. The Minister: I do not believe that 20 years is an acceptable length of time for the gateway to

the Isle of Man to be developed and certainly the amount of times, that Government have been going around and around this particular area, is a cause of concern. I cannot argue with the Hon. 2190 Member’s timings: yes, it will be six years before working with this one scheme to try and get it developed, and I put the blame for that as being predominantly the complexity of the site and the interested parties involved having been at a significant stage when the world recession hit and that certainly did lose some of the confidence.


_________________________________________________________________ 934 T127

A scheme on this scale is often likely to be in the region of ten years before it will be 2195 developed to fruition and, like the Hon. Member of Council and many others, that frustrates the heck out of me. The reality is that the four to six months will indicate whether this scheme is viable in the current market. I believe that, from that stage, we will have a clear indication as to how serious we can be in the developer to take it forward and if we get good wind then, yes, it would certainly be taking up to the eight to ten years before the scheme could realistically be 2200 developed.

I share the frustration. It is something that I currently have responsibility for and, as I am the landowner, I am now personally responsible to my Department and it may be easier with just one Department, rather than the vested interests of two or three Departments all trying to look after their own particular part of the equation. Certainly, this will develop housing that we need for the 2205 Isle of Man and it will also develop a major hotel system and leisure and retail sectors and therefore we have to make sure that all interests of the public are maintained and protected. The Hon. Member would be quite rightly concerned if we were to cave in and give the developer exactly what they might want, without putting in the checks and balances. Regrettably, that takes the length of time. 2210

The President: Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: One final question. Would the Minister also not agree that the Government have

already invested a tremendous amount of money in the Douglas inner harbour development and it 2215 is a credit… it is marred by… to get to it you have got to go through this wasteland? And I use the word wasteland advisedly.

The President: Mr Shimmin. 2220 The Minister: Mr President, I am very proud that, during my time at the Department of

Transport, we enhanced significantly the standards required for the North Quay area to try and get it into an environment which is more acceptable for people to enjoy, whether they be locals or visitors to the Island. That was something which many in this Court would not agree with, because we increased and enhanced the specification for that area and had to fight hard with Treasury to 2225 spend more money in order to get a better outcome. Often Hon. Members want to cut costs and therefore we would end up with a traditional style development in that area.

So I have a lot of personal investment from my time in DoT and I am delighted with the work that continues to go on to enhance it. However, we have major works to be done on the South Quay, which is still an embarrassment and, indeed, this site, which, as I said, has lain empty for 2230 over 20 years and when it is completed, hopefully we will have something to be proud of in that area.

TOURISM AND LEISURE

Castletown Golf Links Hotel; Castle Mona Hotel Future plans; recent history; conservation

30. The Hon. Member of Council (Mr Lowey) to ask the Minister for Tourism and Leisure:

What steps have been taken by the Department to encourage the re-opening of the Castletown Golf Links Hotel and the Castle Mona Hotel; how many years have they been boarded up; and whether both buildings are registered historic buildings and what steps are being taken to 2235 protect the fabric, and the internal and external appearance of both buildings? The President: We move on then to Question 30. Again, I call the Hon. Member, Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. 2240 I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. The President: This time it is the Minister for Tourism and Leisure, Mr Quayle, to reply. The Minister for Tourism and Leisure (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. 2245


_________________________________________________________________ 935 T127

With regard to the Castletown Golf Links, I can advise that a planning application was submitted by Fort Island Ltd to the Department of Local Government and the Environment, which proposed the principle of a new timeshare facility, including four permanent penthouse apartments, 51 timeshare suites, two restaurants, conference facility, swimming pool, leisure complex and golf club to replace the existing hotel. I am advised that the principal application was 2250 approved by the Planning Committee on 8th July 2003 and expired on 4th November 2008. Since this permission expired, there have been no further applications submitted for the details or reserved matters of this approval.

The Castletown Golf Links Hotel has been closed and effectively boarded-up for approximately two years. Its tourist registration was not renewed in 2008-09, and it is not a 2255 registered building. The local Commissioners have the necessary legislation to deal with any concerns regarding the appearance of any building within their jurisdiction.

Moving now to the Castle Mona Hotel, and having consulted with the Department of Local Government and the Environment, I am informed as follows: DoLGE’s conservation officer and the planning officer for the area have been in discussion with the property owner’s representatives 2260 since July 2008. A site visit took place in July 2008 to consider the condition of the building and its viability for refurbishment, and a further site visit took place on 19th January this year. As indicated to this Hon. Court in January, the building is subject to regular maintenance checks and there are no causes for concern with the condition of the property, I understand.

My Department has also held a number of meetings and informal discussions with the group 2265 concerned with the hotel premises. The potential for refurbishment has been addressed; however, to date, no planning application has been submitted. We will continue to meet the group as required to discuss any further developments they propose. The Castle Mona has now been closed since December 2006, and it was registered on the Protected Buildings Register in October 1985, by reason of its architectural and historic interest. 2270

Mr President, my Department is keen to encourage all accommodation providers to develop and improve their properties, and is fully aware of the importance of having high-quality accommodation available to visitors to the Island. I hope it is clear that both my Department and DoLGE are continuing to work collaboratively with the owners of hotels to encourage them to be re-opened for business. 2275

In closing, it is pertinent to mention the Visitor Facility Improvement Scheme, which was amended and then approved by this Hon. Court in July last year and which gives the visitor facility owners an opportunity to apply for grants of up to 40 per cent, to assist them in their improvement works.

2280 The President: Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: I thank the Hon. Minister for his comprehensive reply. Can I just say, what encouragement…? My question to the Minister was what steps have been

taken by the Department to encourage the opening of the Castletown Golf Links. It appears, while 2285 he has spoken with the developers of the Castle Mona, I notice he was silent, apart from reciting the history of the last few years of the Castletown Golf Links. Has the Department… and this is one of the prime sites in the Isle of Man for hotel accommodation. I just am surprised to hear that the Department has not taken steps to try and encourage development on a prime site for tourist accommodation: could he tell me why he has not taken any steps? 2290

The President: Mr Quayle, Minister for Tourism. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. As we have just heard from an answer to earlier questions about the financial situation at the 2295

moment regarding the development of a hotel, I can say, in this respect for the Castletown Golf Links, we know that the planning has expired; we know, too, that the owner of the Castletown Golf Links is linked with the ownership also of the Castle Mona Hotel, so when we are actually dealing with the potential discussions, then it obviously relates to a connection with both properties. 2300

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not consider that maybe the situation is the

fact that a 40 per cent grant is not viable, as far as the investment into tourist hotel 2305


_________________________________________________________________ 936 T127

accommodation, at the present time? Is that the reason why there seems to be no interest, allowing for the fact that we have also got the Grand Island rotting away at the present time?

What assurances can we have, especially for the hon. questioner, about the initiatives that his Department needs to take, in order to see whether we can get some investment to get an increase in the decent accommodation on this Island, which is sadly lacking? 2310

The President: Minister for Tourism, Mr Quayle. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Using agricultural vernacular, I suppose you can lead a horse to drink, but you cannot make it 2315

drink. I think the fact is that we have the opportunities available on the Island here. There is the

Visitor Facility Improvement Scheme. It was enhanced to encourage further take-up of that facility, and I am pleased to say, there has been an increase in existing hoteliers and accommodation providers upgrading their facilities, which is actually most important. I do think 2320 that the fact that we had a very successful year last year, with 4.3 per cent extra tourists coming to the Island, is driven by the fact that there is an increasing quality of accommodation on the Island, and I applaud people for actually investing in their properties, bringing them up to a higher standard for discerning visitors. That should be encouraged to continue, and I hope other people will make applications to the Visitor Facility Improvement Scheme. 2325

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, allowing for the fact that 4.6 per cent, or whatever it is, increase in

tourism, is very impressive – and some might question whether that is reality – would the 2330 Shirveishagh not agree that, when you allow for a new hotel development – now we are talking of something in the region of £100,000 per room, as far as any development is concerned – the situation of a 40-per-cent grant may be something that needs to be looked at, if you are serious in wanting to bring in some decent accommodation – there is decent accommodation, but better than the decent accommodation that you have got at the present time, in order to try and upmarket the 2335 tourist industry?

The President: Mr Quayle. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 2340 I think we are aware that the same group were having an appraisal of their portfolio and the

best way in which to develop facilities in Douglas, in and amongst the different properties that they own. I think there has been clarity in recent months now, in terms of the Summerland site, and so they will no doubt be looking afresh at the best way forward, and the Sefton Group have made it clear that they are evaluating the situation, before they make any further announcement as 2345 to their intentions.

All I can say is that we will continue to suggest to accommodation providers that they improve their facilities, and we would welcome development at the Castle Mona site, to provide hotel facilities there.

I do not want to stray into the actions of DoLGE, those officers there who will be monitoring 2350 the situation in terms of the registered building; but obviously, I am sure all Hon. Members in this Court would be encouraging the Castle Mona and the owners to develop the property in a sympathetic manner.

Road Races (Amendment) Bill

Legal work

31. The Hon. Member of Council (Mr Lowey) to ask the Minister for Tourism and Leisure: Why was the legal work for the Road Races (Amendment) Bill undertaken by an off-Island law firm; how much did it cost; and who authorised it? 2355 The President: Question 31. Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey.


_________________________________________________________________ 937 T127

Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. 2360 The President: Again, I call on the Minister for Tourism and Leisure, Mr Quayle, to reply. The Minister for Tourism and Leisure (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. The proposed Road Races (Amendment) Bill is intended to facilitate road racing on Sundays

and the proposal, as will be known, was recently the subject of a wide-ranging public consultation 2365 exercise and the Department of Tourism and Leisure is now currently considering the views expressed, in order to determine the best way to proceed with this issue.

I can advise the Hon. Member that the work necessary to prepare for this Bill, as outlined, was undertaken by full-time staff of the Department of Tourism and Leisure, with the support from the legislative drafters of Her Majesty’s Attorney General’s Chambers. No external legal costs were 2370 incurred in the progression of the Road Races (Amendment) Bill.

The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member. Mr Turner: Yes, a supplementary, Mr President. 2375 Did the Department consult the expertise of any on-Island lawyers who are involved in motor

sports, such as Mr Geoff Karran and Mr Martin Moore, both of whom hold international ACU licences in that process?

The President: Mr Quayle. 2380 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President, and I thank the Hon. Member of Council for that

supplementary. I am not aware that Mr Karran and Mr Moore were involved in supplying expertise or

assistance in this particular regard. It has to be said that, for most Government Departments, the 2385 Attorney General’s Chambers are the services that we utilise for the drafting of legislation.

The President: Mr Lowey, Hon. Member. Mr Lowey: No, I… 2390 The President: Mr Turner. Mr Turner: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Given that we have individuals on the Island that hold such high-level ACU licences, would it 2395

have been prudent to discuss the matter with these individuals, as in some areas of the UK they do not have the expertise locally and yet we do have at least two individuals that hold such high-level licences?

The President: Mr Quayle. 2400 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Well, expertise did rest within the three Departments that are involved in the road racing and

certainly this amendment to the Road Races Act is such that it was only facilitating one element, which was relating to Sunday closing of the roads, so I do not think it was envisaged that it was 2405 too complicated and that it would be dealt with sufficiently within the three Departments and the Attorney General’s Chambers.

The President: Mr Downie, Hon. Member. 2410 Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. Could the Hon. Member give an assurance to this Court today that none of the work in

connection with the Road Races (Amendment) Bill was carried out by a UK firm of solicitors, either on behalf of his Department or another Department and the point I am making is that surely, on this Island, we are better placed with a team of experts that we have here to deal with all the 2415 legislative matters relating to road racing? I just want that assurance.

The President: Minister, I think you replied to that before, sir.


_________________________________________________________________ 938 T127

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 2420 I would like to clarify the situation that I have been asked about the Road Races (Amendment)

Bill, and I have given the clarity required for that particular proposal. I am aware, however, that there is an envisaged Road Races Bill and some legal work was undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs, which obviously is another matter than the Question that is before us.

2425 The President: Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Could I ask the Hon. Member, then, on the basis of the admission that other work

might have been carried out by another Department, he obtains that information and perhaps circulates it to Hon. Members, so that we can see how much money has been spent with a law 2430 practice off the Island on road race legislation?

The President: Mr Quayle, Minister for Tourism. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 2435 Obviously, there are two completely different matters here. One is the Road Races

(Amendment) Act and one is a potential complete revision of the Road Races Bill, but I am very happy to take that back to the Department and speak with my colleague to provide the information that is being sought.

2440 The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member. Mr Turner: Mr President, can the Minister confirm that, with reference to the Amendment

Bill, it has met with public opposition? 2445 The President: Minister. The Minister: Quite clearly, Mr President, there has been opposition. Equally, there have been

people that have written in support of it. As I have indicated earlier, the Department is now considering the overall situation concerning whether it should wish to proceed with the Road 2450 Races (Amendment) Bill or otherwise. We will make a decision, having evaluated all the facts.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Cannan. Mr Cannan: Can I ask the Minister, in the light of the information he has given, who advised 2455

the Department, or indeed the Home Affairs Department, that road racing legislation required off-Island expertise?

The President: Mr Quayle. 2460 The Minister: As I have already said, Mr President, I am happy to circulate the information,

which is work that has been undertaken outwith my remit.

Radio TT Awarding of contract to Manx Radio

32. The Hon. Member for Peel (Mr Crookall) to ask the Minister for Tourism and Leisure:

Why has the contract for ‘Radio TT’ been given to Manx Radio without its going out to tender? The President: We go to Question 32. 2465 Mr Crookall, Hon. Member for Peel, please. Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. 2470 The President: Again, the Answer is in the hands of the Minister for Tourism and Leisure, Mr

Quayle.


_________________________________________________________________ 939 T127

The Minister for Tourism and Leisure (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. The contract for TT radio services has been let to Manx Radio for many years. When the most

recent contract expired in 2009, the Department of Tourism and Leisure recognised that there 2475 would be an expectation that the tender be advertised for open competition. Indeed, at least one of the local radio companies had asked to be considered for the contract.

The Department considered the merits of a competitive tender process at great length, and sought the advice of both the Communications Commission and the Council of Ministers before acting. 2480

Acting on the advice received, the Department decided that coverage was provided by Manx Radio, in line with section 7(e) of the 2002 Darwin Report. This Report considered the future role, structure and funding of Manx Radio. Section 7(e) specifically recommended that Manx Radio, as the public broadcaster, be given guaranteed access to certain Island events, the TT Races being one such designated Island event, as indeed I think another one was Tynwald Day. 2485

The Department concluded, on advice, that Manx Radio is the publicly funded national station of the Isle of Man and, as such, concluded that the original recommendation of the Darwin Report still stands regarding coverage of the TT Races. I can confirm that the negotiations with Manx Radio were undertaken on a commercial basis and that, at all times, my Department has sought to maximise the value for public monies expended. 2490

The President: Mr Crookall. Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. While I do not think anybody would disagree that Manx Radio do provide an excellent service 2495

and coverage of the TT, I am staggered to hear that, having been told that the Department did say to the other two radio stations on the Island they would be allowed to tender for that… I am staggered to hear what he said. Certainly, in the eyes of transparency, that did not happen.

Can he also tell me, how much does the DTL pay Manx Radio for providing that service for the two weeks, sir? 2500

The President: Mr Quayle. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. The Hon. Member for Peel mentions that two radio stations were told that there would be a 2505

tender process. I am not aware of the conversations that had been conducted with anybody else, other than to say that it is true to understand that I think the Department at one stage thought it would be able to undertake a competitive tender process, but looked into the matter in great detail, and having had the advice of the Communications Commission and Council of Ministers before acting, then the information, as I have previously indicated, led us to believe that we awarded it to 2510 Manx Radio for the reasons given.

In terms of the cost, I am not altogether sure of that, but I can look into that and give further information, as required.

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. 2515 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, can the Shirveishagh explain to this Hon. Court, how can it be an

open tender procedure, if there are three people allowed to tender, but two are debarred from doing so?

2520 The President: Mr Quayle. Mr Karran: New economics! The Minister: Mr President, it was not an open tender process, because it had been 2525

determined… Having regard to the input from the Communications Commission and the Council of Ministers, it was decided to award this to Manx Radio for the fact that they do cover Tynwald Day, they do cover the TT and have done for 46 years, and it was quite clearly seen and understood in this Hon. Court, some years ago, that Manx Radio had a special role within the heart of the community in providing national coverage to these national events. 2530

That is the principal reason why Manx Radio, with its superb coverage, going back over 46 years, is seen to be the best choice for providing the service that is required for a world-class festival, which we could not take any chances with.


_________________________________________________________________ 940 T127

The President: Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member. 2535 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. Will the Minister inform us, when he contacted the Communications Commission and got their

advice, when he got the advice from Council of Ministers, whether he actually informed the other radio stations that he would not be going out for competitive tender, and who decided it was a commercial rate? 2540

The President: Mr Quayle.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. As Hon. Members will be aware, I would not have the minutiae of all that information, to have 2545

available for Hon. Members now, so I am more than happy to provide the information by letter to Hon. Members, to cover the various points that will need to be addressed.

All I can say is that the Council of Ministers considered the matter before we dealt with Manx Radio and Energy, and obviously we had the information from the Communications Commission prior to making our decision not to go out to tender in this particular instance. 2550

The President: Mr Downie, Hon. Member of Council. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. Given that the Minister’s stated policy in connection with the TT is to gain more economic 2555

benefit from the running of the TT Races, could the Minister advise us today whether, with giving this contract to Manx Radio there is a sharing of any advertising, whether North One would qualify for money out of the promotion of certain products and goods on Manx Radio – in my view, more of it should be coming back to the Department – or is all we are doing now just allowing the advertising revenue that is gained here to further subsidise Manx Radio? 2560

The President: Mr Quayle. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. In fact, the Department will be continuing to maximise the revenue-earning opportunities and 2565

commercialisation of aspects of the TT, such that it will be encouraging Manx Radio to work with North One and our other partners, to make sure that we derive the maximum value for those involved, in terms of the Isle of Man receiving the best possible value for money and commercial arrangements, such that they will provide as much income as we can garner from anybody being involved in the event. 2570

The President: Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. Bearing in mind, then, that the Minister said that he is encouraging Manx Radio to work with 2575

people like North One and so on, is there any commercial contract in place? Has there been an agreed split? Is the Department going to benefit, or the event and the costs related to the event going to benefit, from the advertising revenue or, as I said originally, are we still just going to continue to subsidise Manx Radio at the loss of any income that the Department and the event might benefit from? 2580

The President: Mr Quayle, Minister for Tourism. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Following the 2009 TT, the following major categories were advertised: sponsorship, media 2585

PR, website, programme. That is the case now, that we have been trying to establish as much commercial value to the Isle of Man as possible in anything that we are doing. So, while some of the categories obviously cost us money, where there is an opportunity to derive value and benefit to the Isle of Man, in terms of economic generation, that is what we will do.

So we will be relying upon Manx Radio, who are very enthusiastic to work with us, to make 2590 sure that we will have the best possible opportunity of getting income into the Island, acknowledging the fact that we have this arrangement with Manx Radio to be the voice of the


_________________________________________________________________ 941 T127

radio, actually, during TT. I do think that is entirely consistent with what we want to achieve, which is to bring extra income into the Island.

2595 The President: Mr Crookall. Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. A final supplementary. Can the Minister just clarify, then, he said before about ‘guaranteed access’ to Island events,

i.e. the TT and Tynwald Day. Does this mean the Department now has a policy where Manx Radio 2600 will have coverage over these ad infinitum, sir?

The President: Mr Quayle. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 2605 I think it needs to be remembered that the original Darwin Report referred to the fact that

Manx Radio ought to have special status, in terms of covering the national events such as Tynwald Day, TT Races, and there were one or two other ones covered in the original Darwin Report.

I would just like to say that, let us be honest, the Isle of Man, through the public purse, is effectively the owner of Manx Radio, so when people are saying that we are subsidising them to 2610 any extent, we know from the Budget yesterday, that there has been a reduction in their budget –

Mr Cregeen: They are getting it back from this! The Minister: – and so I think it is entirely consistent and value for money to think that we 2615

have been able to benefit from their superb coverage. We have done that for 46 years. There has been an investment in some of the infrastructure to allow for them to cover the event and that will continue, because they have done a great job and we have invested in them to do that.

The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member. 2620 Mr Cannan: Would the Minister acknowledge that Manx Radio receives a subvention of

almost £1 million – £968,000 per annum in the new Budget – and by giving full ministerial support for everything that Manx Radio does, does that bear any reflection that Ministers have monopoly use in current affairs and news items on Manx Radio? (Interjections and laughter) 2625

The President: Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. The first point I would say is that I did not endorse everything that Manx Radio does, so I am 2630

not giving them carte blanche; I am just insisting that, in fact, Tynwald, in this Hon. Court, in accepting the Darwin Report and the way it was all debated, acknowledged the fact that Manx Radio is at the centre of Island life in covering national events, and that is why it will cover the national, prime, world-class events, such as the TT.

2635 The President: Hon. Members, I think it is an appropriate time in which we took our break.

The remaining Questions will be answered in written form, Hon. Members. I am asked by Mr Houghton to remind you, Hon. Members, that an invitation is extended for a

presentation in the Barrool Suite during lunchtime. Two-thirty, Hon. Members. Thank you. 2640

The Court adjourned at 1.05 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.


_________________________________________________________________ 942 T127

Questions for Written Answer

TRANSPORT

Sewage sludge Costs of treatment

33. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Transport:

Whether the treatment and drying of sludge in the drying plant at a temperature of 800 degrees Celsius and energy costs of £987,000 is excessive considering that the melting point of aluminium is 740 degrees Celsius; and in view of the high energy costs involved whether he should be considering an alternative and more cost effective means of treating the sludge? 2645 Answer: As outlined to some Hon. Members in response to a Question in another place on 2nd

February 2010, in developing the IRIS Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy, the Department will pursue energy efficient technologies for treating sewage sludge whilst having regard to the available disposal routes for dried sludge.

The high temperature within the sludge drying plant is required to fulfil two purposes. The first 2650 is to ensure that the sludge pellets produced by the plant have been through an enhanced treatment process to achieve a 99.9999% pathogen reduction. This is a requirement of the Safe Sludge Matrix if the sludge pellets are to be used on agricultural land as a soil conditioner. The second purpose is to produce pellets with a very low moisture content, typically 95% dry solids content and a high calorific value, which can be disposed of at the Energy from Waste Facility and used to 2655 produce electricity.

Mr President, I can confirm that sludge disposal and energy use are being considered as part of the IRIS Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy. Furthermore, I can assure Hon. Members that the sludge drying furnace is built of steel and not aluminium and can therefore withstand the high temperatures required to dry the sludge. 2660

MANX HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Manx Heritage Foundation accounts Qualification by auditors

34. The Hon. Member for Rushen (Mr Watterson) to ask the Chairman of the Manx Heritage Foundation:

In light of her assurance on 24th February 2009 that ‘the Foundation is confident that its Responsible Financial Officer will ensure full compliance in liaison with the auditors for all future years’, if she will explain why the Foundation accounts have yet again been qualified by the auditors? 2665 Answer: The Hon Member will recall that my answer to his question in February 2009 was in

connection with the compliance with the Audit Act 2006 and, more specifically, the doubt that existed as to whether dispensation applied to the Manx Heritage Foundation. Having established from the Audit (Direction) Order 2007 that the Manx Heritage Foundation was to be included within the provisions of the Audit Act 2006, I gave the assurance to the House that the Foundation 2670 would ensure full compliance for future years but clearly, at the time of giving that assurance, we were already 11 months into the financial year to 31st March 2009.

The qualifications contained in the accounts for the year ended 31st March 2009 are twofold, namely:

1) omission of an internal audit, and 2675 2) the inability to confirm that all stock held by the Foundation was properly recorded. In respect of the internal audit matter, and to give the Hon Member a better understanding, I

should point out that, until January 2010, the Foundation did not have permanent premises and both the full time Administrator and the part-time Responsible Financial Officer, operated from


_________________________________________________________________ 943 T127

their respective homes. Whilst systems of checks and balances were in place, a full internal audit 2680 function was simply not feasible, either in economic or pragmatic terms, given the scale of our operations. I am satisfied that those checks and balances gave reasonable assurance to the Foundation on financial and corporate governance matters. Clearly, however, there was no formal internal audit function and therefore the auditors were obliged to raise the matter of non compliance in their report. 2685

Turning to the verification of stock, the Foundation possesses books, DVDs and CDs for onward sale which are stored with a third party, namely Doxbond. During the annual physical check of stock, some items could not be located in those premises and, therefore, satisfaction could not be given to the Auditors in respect of verification of stock.

Since January 2010, the Manx Heritage Foundation has moved into its own premises at the 2690 Stable Building of the University Centre at the Nunnery, where we now have a base for both our Administrator and part-time Responsible Financial Officer. Now that we have formal office accommodation, we will be looking to establish a more structured internal audit function, as is compatible with our size of operation, and liaison with our external auditors.

There is also room to store a certain amount of the Foundation’s stock and, whilst moving 2695 some of that stock to our own premises, we will institute a more rigorous system of stock recording.

In the light of the operational circumstances in which we find ourselves, I can assure the Hon Member that the Foundation and, in particular, its Responsible Financial Officer, is proactively addressing these matters but would ask the Hon Member to be cognisant of the limitations in 2700 compliance terms placed upon the Foundation when taking into account its size and capacity.

It is disappointing to have a qualified audit report which, in all likelihood, will also apply to the March 2010 accounts. It is to be noted that, apart from the two matters referred to, in all other respects, the Foundation has met the requirements of the Audit Act 2006.

I can assure the Hon Member that the Members of the Foundation, together with the 2705 Responsible Financial Officer, in whom I and my colleagues have every confidence, are working to meet the financial requirements placed upon us.

CHIEF MINISTER

Boundary Review Committee Appointment of new Committee

35. The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Malarkey) to ask the Chief Minister:

If he intends to appoint a new Boundary Review Committee to carry on the work of the previous Committee in light of the fact that the Constitution Bill 2007 does not appear to be progressing? 2710 Answer: On 23rd January 2007, a Constitution Bill 2007 was introduced into the House of

Keys. On the 24th April 2007, the House adopted a version of this Bill which continued through its Keys stages and was passed by the House on 5th May 2009

On Tuesday 21st April 2009, Tynwald agreed the following resolution which related to a 2715 motion moved by the Chief Minister:

“That pursuant to section 11(5) of the Representation of the People Act 1995, Tynwald supports the Governor in Council dissolving the Boundary Review Committee and that after the outcome of the Constitution Bill 2007 is known, requests the Governor in Council to recommend the appointment of a new Boundary Review Committee to review the 2720 number and boundaries of the constituencies for election to the House of Keys.” On 23rd June 2009, the Constitution Bill 2007 was defeated at a Second Reading in the

Legislative Council. The Clerk to the Legislative Council has advised that the outcome of the Constitution Bill 2007 2725

is not yet determined and, under the provisions of the Constitution Act 2006, it is still open to the House of Keys to put the Bill to Tynwald as a ‘Keys only Bill’ and that the earliest the Keys could decide to do so is from November 2010 up until May 2011.

It is still open at this time for the Constitution Bill 2007 to progress and, therefore, the Tynwald resolution of 21 April 2009 still applies; it would, therefore, be totally inappropriate for 2730


_________________________________________________________________ 944 T127

the Governor in Council to take any action until the Constitution Bill 2007 is determined by the House and, if appropriate, ultimately by Tynwald.

Independence of Crown dependencies Jersey’s Constitution Review document; joint discussions

36. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chief Minister:

(a) whether a meeting took place on 30th June 2008 between the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey to discuss an 83 page document by Jersey’s Constitution Review Group on the subject of independence from the UK; 2735 (b) if he will lay the document before Tynwald with recommendations for debate; and (c) if he will publish the minutes of the meeting and of any subsequent discussions with the other Crown dependencies on the subject of independence? Answer: (1) The annual Inter-Island meeting in 2008 between representatives of the Crown 2740

Dependencies took place on 30th June. Representatives from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney were in attendance and the Sark representatives gave their apologies on this occasion. I can confirm that The Second Interim Report of the Constitution Review Group, which had been published by Jersey just prior to the meeting, was raised by Jersey and was briefly covered at the meeting. 2745

(2) I do not consider that it would be appropriate for Government to lay before Tynwald a document produced for and, published by the Government of another country, in this case Jersey, which is specific to that island.

(3) The minutes of the Inter-Island meetings are confidential to enable there to be an open and honest exchange of views. I do not, therefore, believe it to be appropriate to publish such minutes 2750 and, in fact, it is not in my gift to do so and in any case they would only be released with the prior permission of all those in attendance.

Reciprocal health agreements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Ministry of Justice deliberations


Whether the Ministry of Justice has yet concluded its deliberations on the legal competence of the Isle of Man entering into separate reciprocal health agreements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and if not, whether the Isle of Man Government considers it acceptable that 2755 this matter remains outstanding from September 2009? Answer: I am advised that the Ministry of Justice has yet to conclude this matter and that

consideration is ongoing into the legal competence of the devolved administrations to enter into individual reciprocal health agreements. I can confirm that the Isle of Man Government would 2760 welcome an early conclusion to this matter.

Planned restructuring of Government Expansion on statement

38. The Hon. Member for Rushen (Mr Gill) to ask the Chief Minister:

If he will expand on the statement ‘no functions [of Government] would be lost in the move, which is not designed to create redundancies’ which is part of his Office’s News Release dated 1st February 2010 ? 2765 Answer: The proposal to re-structure Government is not designed to make public servants

redundant. The changes are intended to improve delivery of public services across a range of


_________________________________________________________________ 945 T127

functions, to make the public service as efficient and effective as they can be and to bring about better co-ordination of Government services.

Review of the Scope and Structure of Government Governance Committee discussions

39. The Hon. Member for Rushen (Mr Gill) to ask the Chief Minister:

How many times has the Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee met to discuss the 2770 Review of the Scope and Structure of the Isle of Man Government since the last General Election and on what dates? Answer: Since the General Election, the Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee has

met to specifically consider the Review Report on five occasions. The dates are as follows: 4th 2775 October 2007, 11th October 2007, 1st November 2007, 7th January 2008, and on 14th January 2010, after which it was referred to the Council of Ministers for their consideration and determination.

Ending of Reciprocal Health Agreement Requests for meetings with Secretary of State


Whether the requests for meetings with the UK Government to discuss the ending of the reciprocal health agreement which were refused, were made directly to the Secretary of State 2780 for Health – Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP (until June 2009) and Rt. Hon. Andy Burnham MP from June 2009); and if he will state the dates such meetings were requested? Answer: As I have advised previously, no direct approaches were made to the Secretary of

State for Health until the direct approach made to the Rt. Hon. Andy Burnham MP on 21st 2785 December 2009.

HOME AFFAIRS

Parole Committee Membership


Who are the members of the Parole Committee ? Answer: The Members of the Parole Committee are as follows:- Mr S. J. Parkes, Mrs. A. E. E. Fehle, Mr I. P. Cannell, Miss L. C. Byrne, Professor J. H. 2790

Scarffe, Mr J. S. Kermode and Mrs. C. Faulds.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Work Permits

Numbers by country 42. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry:


_________________________________________________________________ 946 T127

During the period 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2009 what is the total number of new work permits issued and existing work permits renewed, in respect of citizens of the following countries – (a) Russia; China; 2795 (b) Poland; Lithuania; Estonia; Albania; Latvia; Czech Republic; other EU countries by name; (c) South Africa; other African countries by name (d) Philippines; other Asian countries by name; (e) Australasia by country name; and 2800 (f) North and South America by country name? Answer: The following tables provide the information requested by the Honourable Member.

The information has been provided, firstly, in the order as requested in the questions, with the remaining countries classed as ‘Other’ listed in alphabetical order. 2805

Where no permits are recorded as being issued, the country is not listed. Albania is listed, despite not having any permits issued, as it was specifically referred to in the question.

Country Work Permits Part (a) New Renewed Russia 4 2 People’s Republic of China 26 22 Chinese Hong Kong 0 1 Republic Of China (Taiwan) 1 0 Part (b) Poland 327 442 Lithuania 14 13 Estonia 2 4 Albania 0 0 Latvia 25 22 Czech Republic 14 20 Part (b) Other EU Countries Austria 6 1 Belgium 22 4 Bulgaria 45 42 Cyprus 2 0 Denmark 0 6 Eire 172 146 Finland 14 1 France 41 24 Germany 23 32 Greece 1 6 Holland 15 7 Hungary 22 19 Italy 29 25 Malta 25 28 Portugal 26 45 Romania 33 24 Slovakia 35 56 Slovenia 2 0 Spain 21 10 Sweden 8 16 United Kingdom 3,046 3,553 Part (b) (Other non-EU Europeans) Channel Islands 5 7 Croatia 0 1 Norway 0 2 Switzerland 3 3 Ukraine 3 5


_________________________________________________________________ 947 T127

Part (c) South Africa 39 103 Part (c) Other African Countries by name Cameroon 2 2 Congo 0 3 Egypt 4 0 Ghana 3 4 Kenya 2 2 Libya 2 0 Mauritania 5 6 Nigeria 3 1 Rwanda 0 1 Sudan 1 0 Tanzania 2 8 Uganda 2 1 Zambia 2 2 Zimbabwe 13 25 Part (d) Philippines 75 124 Country Part (d) Other Asian countries by name Bangladesh 10 2 India 47 38 Indonesia 20 1 Iraq 4 1 Israel 1 4 Jordan 2 0 Kazakhstan 0 2 Malaysia 21 6 Nepal 0 1 Pakistan 15 5 Saudi Arabia 1 0 Singapore 3 1 Sri Lanka 1 1 Syria 1 0 Thailand 5 4 Turkey 18 6 Part (e) Australia 32 25 New Zealand 20 14 Solomon Islands 1 1


_________________________________________________________________ 948 T127

Part (f) North America Canada 9 14 United States of America 18 14 South America & Caribbean Brazil 4 3 Bermuda 2 1 Chile 1 1 Colombia 0 1 Costa Rica 0 1 Guyana 3 0 Jamaica 1 1 Nicaragua 0 1 Peru 1 0 Saint Lucia 1 0 Trinidad and Tobago 1 0 Uruguay 1 0

TRANSPORT

IRIS Deficiencies; litigation

43. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Minister for Transport:

(a) whether all the deficiencies in the operational IRIS drainage system have been rectified or there are continuing problems; and (b) whether all outstanding claims and litigation have now been settled and at what cost, or is 2810 there still litigation in progress? Answer: In answer to part 1 of the Question, I can confirm that the IRIS system is operating

effectively and producing a very high quality treated effluent which is being discharged to sea off Santon Head. There are no problems affecting the treatment processes, which are operating in 2815 compliance with the discharge consents issued by the Environmental Protection Unit. Mr President, there is one matter which currently remains before the Courts and relates to a case being brought against the Department by Mr John Moore of Meary Voar. By agreement between both parties, the matter has been adjourned for a 12 month period and will be heard again in July 2010. In addition, the Department has issued a claim against the Consulting Engineer, Arup, for 2820 damages resulting from the White Hoe pumping station noise and vibration issue and other matters at Meary Veg. It is hoped the Department can reach agreement with Arup over this claim.

The Court met at 2.30 p.m.

The Deputy Clerk: Hon. Members, please be upstanding for the President of Tynwald. The President: Please be seated, Hon. Members. 2825


_________________________________________________________________ 949 T127

Orders of the Day

The Bowl Statement by the Minister for Tourism and Leisure

The President: Hon. Members, we have completed the Question Paper this morning, so we

come to Item 3 on your Order Paper, and Item 3 is a statement by the Minister for Tourism and Leisure.

Mr Quayle, please. 2830 The Minister for Tourism and Leisure (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. As part of the resolution approved at the December sitting, my Department was required to

encourage Douglas Corporation to reconsider contributing 50% of the capital cost of refurbishing the Douglas Bowl and, further, in the event that Douglas Corporation did not agree to such funding, we were to seek to progress the incorporation of the Bowl complex, which includes the 2835 adjacent Pulrose car park, into the ownership of Government at a nominal cost, and report to Tynwald at the February 2010 sitting. As Hon. Members are aware, Douglas Corporation considered the matter on 8th January and, after a lengthy debate, the Council voted nine for and nine against continuing to take part in a joint scheme.

The Mayor then used his casting vote against the resolution. A second resolution was then 2840 moved and approved, which provided for the Corporation to enter into discussions with the Department, with a view to the Bowl stadium only being transferred into Government ownership.

I have to say, Mr President, that I believe that Douglas Corporation made the wrong decision. (A Member: Hear, hear.) The joint scheme was to the advantage of both parties, and I feel that, in rejecting that scheme, our capital’s local authority abdicated its responsibilities. I am obviously 2845 deeply disappointed and I feel sure that Hon. Members will share my disappointment. That is, however, the democratic decision of the Council.

Our approach then moved on to the acquisition option, as set out in the final part of the December resolution. On 18th January 2010, I wrote formally to leading Councillor David Christian, setting out the Department’s offer, subject to contract, to acquire the Bowl site, 2850 including the Bowl car park, for a nominal sum. In that respect, I was, of course, following the Tynwald resolution. Following a telephone conversation, leading Councillor Christian responded by letter dated 20th January, offering to transfer ownership of the Bowl itself for a nominal sum, but advising that the Council wished to retain ownership of the car park.

After a further exchange of correspondence, which explored the possibility of a way forward, I 2855 met with leading Councillor Christian on 5th February to try and resolve matters. I explained to him that both the resolution at the December sitting of Tynwald and subsequent discussions within the Council of Ministers left me in no doubt that the inclusion of the main car park within the land to be transferred was an absolute requisite. This was particularly the case now that Government, through my Department, subject to the necessary approvals, would have to fund the whole £3.4 2860 million scheme. He explained to me Douglas Corporation’s need to ensure adequate car parking facilities for the town and viewed the Bowl car park in the long term as part of that provision. The main requirement for parking to support the normal Bowl operations will be evenings and weekends because the secondary car park behind the FA headquarters will be adequate for normal weekday daytime customers other than buses and coaches. The main requirement for public town-2865 centre parking will be Monday to Friday daytimes.

Therefore, I suggested that, should the full transfer of ownership go ahead, my Department would be prepared to enter into a long-term agency agreement with Douglas Corporation to enable it to operate a pay-and-display car park during the period 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., Monday to Friday. We would need to make provision for any weekday daytime usage by buses and coaches 2870 and major events in the Bowl but, in reality, they are likely to be infrequent. I should therefore perhaps make it clear that, contrary to newspaper reports, it was my suggestion to enter into an agency agreement for the car park in order to reach an agreement. At the conclusion of our meeting, leading Councillor David Christian indicated that he was agreeable to propose a positive recommendation, accepting this offer, to the meeting of Douglas Town Council to be held on 2875 Wednesday, 10th February. I am very pleased to be able to formally advise this Hon. Court that the Council determined to accept this proposal.

So, Mr President, Hon. Members, how do we progress from here? Firstly, as part of the Isle of Man Budget, approved by this Hon. Court yesterday, provision has been made in the capital


_________________________________________________________________ 950 T127

programme for the funding for the Bowl refurbishment scheme. As such, the scheme is now a 2880 Government capital scheme and will be progressed by the Department as a normal capital scheme. The programme means that we will be seeking approval from this Hon. Court to the capital funding at the July sitting of Tynwald, and I confirm that this timetable does allow for the completion of the refurbishment of the Bowl ahead of the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games.

Secondly, we need, as a matter of some urgency, to finalise what is still a subject-to-contract 2885 agreement with Douglas Corporation. That agreement will provide for the transfer of ownership of the whole Bowl complex, including the main car park, to my Department. The fee will be the peppercorn sum of £1, and the agreement will be subject to the approval by this Hon. Court, at the July sitting, of the funding required to enable the capital scheme to proceed.

Thirdly, in parallel with those discussions, we will also need to agree a long-term user 2890 agreement to enable Douglas Corporation to operate the main car park as a long-stay pay-and-display car park between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m., Monday to Friday. The Department is quite content with this arrangement because, on the NSC site as a whole, together with the smaller Bowl car park behind the FA headquarters, we have plenty of parking for daytime use.

The important thing is that, during the evenings, when NSC car parking is already at a 2895 premium, and with increased usage of the Bowl, we need the main car park for our customers. The agreement will also need to make provision for the occasional daytime major events and, indeed, for bus and coach parking for the Bowl itself which cannot be accommodated on the smaller car park.

Mr President, whilst I obviously remain very disappointed with the decision of Douglas 2900 Corporation to withdraw from the joint scheme, I feel that the approach now proposed is pragmatic and it does at least offer a way of achieving the refurbishment of the Bowl and its incorporation into the NSC estate. Further, the solution we have reached is within the mandate given to my Department in the December resolution of Tynwald. The refurbishment of the Bowl is not only, I believe, important for the Commonwealth Youth Games, but just as important, or even 2905 more importantly, offers a lasting legacy for the young people of the Isle of Man in terms of much-needed sports facilities. (Mrs Craine: Hear, hear.) With a synthetic pitch and the facilities there, I recognise that that will be invaluable to be used on a daily basis throughout the week and evenings and weekends.

I recognise that these are difficult financial times, but nonetheless I do believe that an 2910 investment in our youth is an investment in the future and this investment will be worthwhile. The project will be something which I feel, subject to approval in July, is something that we can look on with pride in the years to come.

Thank you, Mr President. 2915 The President: Mr Watterson. Mr Watterson: Firstly, will the Tourism Minister provide details of the agency agreement that

he is mapping out with Douglas Corporation? Secondly, congratulating him on digging himself a hole and jumping into it on the whole thing, 2920

is he continuing with the contingency planning for Ballafletcher, because, frankly, I think he will struggle to get unanimous support for £3½ million in July for this liability that he is planning to take on?

A Member: Hear, hear. 2925 The President: Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I am rather surprised to hear the comments there from the Hon. Member for Rushen, 2930

particularly in view of the Tynwald resolution last October, when it envisaged that we would, indeed, be encouraged to reach an accommodation with Douglas Corporation to allow for the Department to fully own the whole complex. Now, the fact that, obviously, the financial arrangements have changed is one thing, and that will be a subject for the July Tynwald, for Hon. Members of this Court to make their minds up. But I do think the encouragement that we have 2935 had, both in the House of Keys and Legislative Council leads me to believe that we are doing something which is very much having the support of the majority of the Members here. I hope the Hon. Member for Rushen is in the minority.

He also referred to the details of the agency agreement. Well, of course, as one does not yet exist, as I indicated, we will be finalising an agreement with Douglas Corporation which will be 2940


_________________________________________________________________ 951 T127

put to the July sitting of Tynwald, along with approval for the financing that is required. To finalise the answer, in terms of contingency arrangements, then I do not envisage a failure to this agreement, because we have reached an agreement in principle. However, a contingency is for Ballafletcher to be used, should this Court not approve the funding at the July sitting of Tynwald.

2945 The President: Let us not go into a lengthy debate now, Members. Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: I commend the Minister for bringing what I call good news to this Court today. He

has my full support, as he undoubtedly already knew. Can I ask the Minister, why do we have to wait till July? That is four and a half months away. 2950

If we have a bad winter, we are putting pressure on ourselves. Is it not possible for this to be brought before this Court long before July? I cannot see any reason at all why it should take another four and a half months, when this scheme has been urgent and pressing – why it is taking four and a half months for Government to come to the Court for final approval… So, I am asking him, will he bring it to the Court earlier, because most of these drawings and plans etc must be 2955 already up and in place?

The President: ‘Can you come earlier?’ is the question, Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 2960 I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member of Council for his staunch support for this

project, and his enthusiasm for it, as a former Department Member, too. I would just say that we will bring this forward earlier if at all possible, but under the tight

timescale that is envisaged, I do not anticipate it being able to be brought forward any earlier than July. We have, as may be known, advertised recently for expressions of interest, in terms of 2965 providing information to go through the tender process for the works to be undertaken, so we will do everything as quickly as we can, but I think it is a tight timescale and it looks like it will be July. It has to be July, otherwise we are then beyond the timescale envisaged to complete it.

The President: Mr Quirk. 2970 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. Could I ask the Minister on his Statement… The devil is in the detail, and I think that is what

Members will probably want to see. I do support the Scheme and the concept that is going forward, and I just wondered if some clarification can be put about regarding the Isle of Man FA 2975 headquarters, as well. Is that encompassed in the £1 of the Bowl, so that the Isle of Man FA headquarters and the building thereon would become in the ownership of –

The President: Mr Quirk, the Isle of Man FA were not part of the Statement which was made.

Questions to the Statement, sir. 2980 Mr Quirk: It is regarding the Bowl, Mr President. I am sure it would alleviate any difficulties

I may have, sir. The President: Minister. 2985 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Very briefly then, the FA building, as indeed the Ellan Vannin building, would be incorporated

in the whole Bowl estate and they would be both leaseholders of the buildings and the arrangements would carry on as they currently are. 2990

The President: Mr Cregeen. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I know we are all aware that we were looking for something for the Commonwealth Games, 2995

but I think the legacy will be that Douglas Corporation have pulled a flanker here. They have got rid of a debt and £1 million-worth of indebtedness on trying to refurbish this Bowl, and we are taking over the whole three-point-odd million pounds. Then we are going to pay rates to them. Part of the thing was that we were going to take over ownership of the car park, but we have now taken ownership and given it back. Surely this should have gone out for expressions of interest if 3000


_________________________________________________________________ 952 T127

anybody else wanted to run it, because the DoT and DoLGE also run car parks, so we could have had a saving in the scope and structure.

The President: Minister. 3005 The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I am sure any Hon. Member can take the view, as the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon has

done, that we could have got a better deal. I think it was most important to negotiate and have an arrangement whereby we have been successful and have concluded an arrangement which will be beneficial to the people of the Island – for the youth of the Island, in particular – and it will do a 3010 great job for us hosting the Commonwealth Youth Games, a lasting legacy for our youth and for the Isle of Man.

Yes, I feel sure that others may well have the view that we, for example, have not got the best deal, but that is a matter of opinion and we do believe that, with Douglas Corporation entering into an agency agreement to run the car park, that facilitated a final deal to be done in terms of the 3015 negotiations being concluded successfully. If it had been left to a Government Department elsewhere, then it would not be a deal.

The President: Mr Malarkey. 3020 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. Not wanting to widen the debate over whether Douglas ratepayers should be paying totally for

the Bowl, can I congratulate the Minister for coming up with the deal over the car park, and can he confirm that one of the main reasons that Douglas Corporation did not want the car park to disappear is because this Court has given away a prime parking place in the middle of Lord Street, 3025 which has got over 200 parking places on it, which will be absorbed by a hotel, apartments and shops, which will leave a massive parking problem for Douglas in future years if this development goes ahead? Douglas are actually looking forward to the future by making sure they hang on to alternative car parking on the edge of town and not giving it all over without any commitment from Government that they can use it in the future. 3030

The President: I think there was a question there, Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. To be perfectly straightforward about this, the fact is that Douglas Corporation very much had 3035

in mind the need for car parking arrangements. Actually, that was simultaneous to the Government’s view, which is we need that car park in our ownership for car parking for perpetuity for use with the Bowl, so we actually were both agreed on the use of that site. The only thing we needed certainty on is our ownership of that car park: now we are potentially going to spend £3.4 million on it, and that whilst the present Douglas Corporation was encouraging use for the car 3040 park, who knows in the future, another Corporation in 25 years’ time might take another view.

So the fact that we have achieved ownership, subject to contract, has been most important. The President: Hon. Member, Mr Gill. 3045 Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I wonder, would the Minister be kind enough to tell me and those people listening… Would he

justify why this purchase is a need, rather than a want? Let’s not hear any stuff about legacy and the Commonwealth Games. What is the need that we are meeting here, rather than the want?

3050 A Member: Hear, hear. The President: Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 3055 I am rather surprised again by the Hon. Member, this time again from Rushen, who actually

has been a Member of the Department of Tourism and Leisure, has shown enthusiasm for sports and leisure facilities to be provided, and who actually was the Department’s representative on the steering group, with a representative, Councillor Pitts, on the committee that was chaired by Geoff Karran. He is the engineer and architect of the actual agreement that was drawn up initially for us 3060


_________________________________________________________________ 953 T127

to have a 50-50 scheme, and I thank him for his contribution in that respect, and I am only sorry that his enthusiasm appears now to have faltered.

In terms of the need for this scheme, I think it is an opportunity for us, for the Island, our parliament, to provide facilities not just for the Commonwealth Youth Games, but if he was listening before, I said it will be a legacy from the Commonwealth Youth Games for the young 3065 people of the Island to be using that facility several days a week, rather than a grass pitch which would only be used at the weekends. So it is going to be something for generations to come, and I do think we have to, in this parliament… I know we had a difficult Budget yesterday and another one to come next year, but we have to recognise that these are, hopefully, short-term financial challenges and that if we look to the future we still need to invest in the infrastructure, we still 3070 need to provide jobs and some opportunities for the construction industry to be able to work through and secure employment which will be beneficial to those involved.

The President: Mr Waft, Hon. Member. 3075 Mr Waft: Just on the car parking, Mr President, I think you must be aware of car parking,

when they build car parks here, you suddenly find there is corporate car parking come in, and they have taken whole sections of that for the private sector. So just keep your eye on the car parks available and make sure they always are available.

3080 The President: Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. That is an excellent point, and I am sure that will be borne in mind, amongst many others that

will need to be taken into account before we come to a final arrangement, subject to Tynwald 3085 approval.

The President: Do you wish to speak Chief Minister? No.

Select Committee of Tynwald on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander and the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme

Statement by the Chairman The President: In that case, Hon. Members, we will move on to Item 4 on your Order Paper:

Select Committee on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr 3090 Watterson, please.

The Chairman of the Select Committee of Tynwald on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander

and the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Mr Watterson): Mr President, Tynwald agreed on 16th July 2009 to the following motion: 3095

‘That Tynwald appoints a Committee of three Members with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, as amended, to investigate and report on – (1) the cause of the collapse of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IOM) Limited; (2) the role of the Financial Supervision Commission in ensuring the proper management of Kaupthing Singer and 3100 Friedlander (IOM) Limited to protect depositors’ funds; (3) the credibility of the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme; and (4) any other relevant matter and report back by the March 2010 sitting of this Hon. Court.’ 3105 Since the Select Committee was established, we have met formally on seven occasions. We

have taken evidence on three occasions and have arranged for further oral evidence sessions to take place in the forthcoming weeks. We have received a considerable amount of written evidence, both in the form of papers written by witnesses and original transcripts and notes. We have issued two precepts to the liquidators, asking for papers held by them. I hope that Members will, 3110 therefore, agree that we have made best efforts with the time that we have had so far.,

At an early stage, the Select Committee agreed to approach its inquiry by dividing its work into two parts. The first part would be to look at the cause of the collapse of the Bank and the role of the Financial Supervision Commission – in other words, to enquire into, and report on, the first two paragraphs of the remit. It is that element on which we had hoped to report back to you next 3115


_________________________________________________________________ 954 T127

month. Once that progress is complete, we will turn our attention to the third part of the remit, namely the credibility of the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme, on which we will report separately.

This matter is obviously of great public interest. The overwhelming necessity is to ensure that outside observers, especially depositors, realise that this enquiry is serious, in depth, carefully 3120 considered and open minded. We will not be able to do justice to this highly important work and report by the deadline set. I hope that Members will accept that we need to take some more time. We plan to report on the first part of the remit in the next few months.

In the interim, we are publishing as much as possible of the evidence which we have received so far, subject to the demands of confidentiality, on a dedicated website. We are only the second 3125 Select Committee to do so, after the Select Committee on the MEA. This website will permit observers both on the Island and elsewhere to follow closely the progress of our work. At all times, we are keen to hear from interested parties who will be able to comment on the evidence received as the inquiry moves forward, and I hope that that website will be up and running in the very near future. 3130

Hon. Members will notice that this has not been circulated. However, I am happy to provide a copy to save paper to anyone who requests it.

The President: Mr Karran. 3135 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would just like to ask the Chairman… Some of us have made

written submissions about important issues, the likes of ring fencing the likes of subsidiary banks in the Island when they give their assets to their parental company. Will you be making any recommendations, or referring any of these issues so that those issues can be addressed speedily with the Treasury, or are there no proposals, allowing for the fact that you are going to be some 3140 time before you report?

The President: Mr Watterson. Mr Watterson: Certainly, the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme is part of the second part of 3145

our remit. We have our hands rather full at the moment with the first part of the remit, and the Hon. Member’s letter will be considered at that time, sir.

The President: Mr Karran. 3150 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I am not talking about my proposals on the compensation scheme,

but I have written to you about the issue of where you can get a legal charge, as far as a loan given to an organisation and the fact that, maybe, we need to be making representations to the FSC and the Treasury to actually bring that about, where the banks that are registered here who have a parental bank, there is some mechanism to try and ring fence such issues, and if they would 3155 consider making representations before the report actually comes back.

The President: Mr Watterson. Mr Watterson: I do not recall the letter that the Hon. Member is on about. I am just able to 3160

say, at this point that, obviously, I cannot talk in detail about the ongoing work of the Committee; however, we will be coming back with conclusions and recommendations when we report, sir.

The President: Mr Cretney. 3165 Mr Cretney: My question is to you, Mr President. On the basis of Standing Orders, my understanding was that statements, when they were made

in this place, had to be circulated at the same time. I personally have a problem with that Standing Order, on the basis that we get too much paper, but that is what the Standing Order says, to my understanding, rather than being made up as we go along. 3170

The President: As far as I was concerned, a statement should be circulated, Hon. Members…

If it is a lengthy statement, full of facts and figures, I think it is necessary for Members to have it. Otherwise, if it is a straightforward statement, I fail to see why it needs to be circulated at all.

3175 The Chief Minister: Change Standing Orders.


_________________________________________________________________ 955 T127

Mr Cretney: Well, we need to change the orders of the procedure in place. The President: Yes, okay, I take the point, sir. 3180 Mrs Christian: It is not in Standing Orders. The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: There is no reference, Mr President, in Standing Orders, to the circulating of 3185

statements in this Court. (Interjections)

Proposed Design and Build Contract at ‘The Steadings’ Farmhill Statement made by the Minister for Local Government and the Environment

The President: Right, Hon. Members, in relation to the housing questioin, I have had a request

from the Minister for Local Government and the Environment, who wishes to make a statement in relation to first-time buyers, change in housing programme. So I have agreed that, in fact, the Minister should make the statement, as it is of interest. 3190

Now I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment to make that statement. The Minister for Local Government and the Environment (Mr Shimmin): Thank you, Mr

President. This Statement concerns the issue of affordable housing at The Steadings, Farmhill, Douglas, 3195

and to advise Tynwald of the reasons for, and the implications of, a variation to a motion approved by Tynwald. I am grateful, Mr President, for your permission to bring this matter to the attention of Members and the public in this way.

Mr President, Members may recall that, in May of last year, Tynwald approved a motion in my name concerning a proposal to purchase a building project for which planning permission had 3200 been obtained, but was not progressing on site because of the reduced interest in the open market for housing due to the global financial crisis.

Earlier in the year, I had asked the officers of my Department to identify such schemes of housing that met any or all of the following objectives: (a) that they could be brought forward quickly, with little risk; (b) that they could provide additional affordable housing; and (c) that they 3205 could provide continuity of work for local construction workers. This was one of a number of initiatives explored at that time, and I was pleased that I was able to receive the support of Tynwald to progress this particular scheme of affordable housing.

Receipt of this support was sufficient to persuade the developer to commence works on site during the summer, even before the development agreement was signed. Since that time, however, 3210 the Department and the developer have been reviewing the tenure proposed for the properties. The Department has continued to experience demand for first-time buyer housing throughout the past 12 months, despite the general depressed economic environment, and an initial enquiry of 30 potential purchasers from the first-time buyer register, on which some 476 persons have currently expressed a first preference for Douglas, demonstrated an enthusiasm to purchase on this project. 3215 The Department has, therefore, agreed with the developer that all 12 properties be sold to qualifying purchasers from the register and that each two-bedroom apartment, which comply with the Department’s standards for affordable housing, will be sold for £130,000, which is significantly below the open-market value. This means that the £1.8 million approved by Tynwald is no longer needed to pay for the capital scheme and can, therefore, remain unspent in the 3220 Housing Reserve Fund and be available to fund other affordable housing initiatives.

I can confirm the Treasury has been kept advised on the matter as it has unfolded and is aware of the Department’s revised approach in respect of this scheme.

Mr President, I am satisfied that this proposal has achieved the objectives I have previously set and is a good example of the public and private sectors working together for the benefit of the 3225 community.

Thank you, Mr President. The President: Mr Malarkey. 3230 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President.


_________________________________________________________________ 956 T127

The Minister might find it hard to get a question out of what I am about to say, but I would like to thank the Minister for going down this road. I did have concerns at the time whether public sector housing in this area, right next to the new EMI Unit, was the right direction to be going in. I do congratulate him for bringing forward these first-time buyers’. Also, as a little spin, I would 3235 like to congratulate the developers who have kept me up to speed on this, all the way down the line, as to the change with some of the planning applications.

Finally, if I can get away with it, I would also like to congratulate the developers for actually now putting the Manor House on the market as a manor house, as a first-class building, which is now being protected, thanks to the Department putting an order on it. 3240

So I would really like to thank the Minister – and I know I am getting away with murder today! (The President: You are.) – and also thanks to Heritage Homes (Several Members: Ooh!) for saving the Manor House.

The President: Minister, do you wish to make any comment? No. 3245

Noble’s New Primary School Enabling Works

Expenditure approved

5. The Minister for Education to move: That Tynwald approves of the Department of Education incurring expenditure not exceeding £927,905 on the ‘Noble’s New Primary School – Enabling Works’ scheme [Reference Item No 21 under the heading ‘Education’ on page 7 of the 2009-10 Isle of Man Budget and under the Estimates of Capital Payments 2009-10 to 2013-14 on page 53 of the 2009-10 Budget. Also Ref: Item No 10 under the heading ‘Education’ in the Isle of Man 3250 Budget 2010-11 and as detailed in the Estimates of Capital Payments 2010-11 to 2014-15 in the Isle of Man Budget 2010-11] The President: In that case, Hon. Members, we will go on to Item 5 on the Order Paper,

headed up: Noble’s New Primary School, Enabling Works. I call on the Minister for Education, 3255 Mrs Craine, to move, please.

Noble’s New Primary School Enabling Works

Expenditure approved

5. The Minister for Education to move: That Tynwald approves of the Department of Education incurring expenditure not exceeding £927,905 on the ‘Noble’s New Primary School – Enabling Works’ scheme [Reference Item No 21 under the heading ‘Education’ on page 7 of the 2009-10 Isle of Man Budget and under the Estimates of Capital Payments 2009-10 to 2013-14 on page 53 of the 3260 2009-10 Budget. Also Ref: Item No 10 under the heading ‘Education’ in the Isle of Man Budget 2010-11 and as detailed in the Estimates of Capital Payments 2010-11 to 2014-15 in the Isle of Man Budget 2010-11] The President: In that case, Hon. Members, we will go on to Item 5 on the Order Paper, 3265

headed up: Noble’s New Primary School, Enabling Works. I call on the Minister for Education, Mrs Craine, to move, please.

The Minister for Education (Mrs Craine): Thank you, Mr President. With your permission, I have some site maps which I would ask could be circulated, please. 3270 Mr Houghton: We know where it is! The Minister: Some may not.


_________________________________________________________________ 957 T127

Mr President, Ballacloan School originally opened as Demesne Road Boys’ School in 1908, 3275 closing in 1973 and re-opening after refurbishment in 1974 as Ballacloan Infants’ School. Fairfield School originally opened as Tynwald Street School in 1874, becoming a girls’ and infants’ school in 1908 on the opening of Demesne Road Boys’ School, ultimately becoming a mixed junior school, as today. Both schools have served the catchment well for in excess of 100 years.

The Department has, however, identified an extensive list of suitability issues that exist at both 3280 schools, arising primarily from the lack of internal and external space. As they stand today, the facilities are no longer deemed acceptable as a learning environment for the 21st century. The nature of the existing buildings and the site constraints mean that it is neither cost effective nor possible to fully address the issues, and this is why the Department wishes to close the sites and transfer the schools to a new two-form-entry 350-capacity primary school on Westmoreland Road, 3285 using part of the old Noble’s Hospital site. Investment in both the existing schools has been restricted, following the principle established in 2004, that the old Noble’s site should be considered for educational use and the establishment, through an early feasibility study, that the site was suitable for the redevelopment of a replacement primary school, including retention and conversion of the existing new ward block. A demarcation line between the site to transfer to us 3290 and be retained by the DHSS for the central community healthcare facility and other existing users was agreed, and the DHSS have been progressively vacating remaining occupied buildings on our site allocation to enable these proposed enabling works to progress.

The Department has broken the project down into two phases to expedite the planned operation of the new school from September 2015, or earlier completion if capital programme and funding 3295 priorities permit. Before Hon. Members are two site plans: one with the outline in red, which is the area of demolition; and the other indicating how a school can be accommodated on the site. At this Tynwald sitting, the Department is seeking approval to proceed with the first enabling phase to demolish buildings on our site allocation, including the removal of asbestos and other contaminants, removal of all substructures, re-fenestration works at interface points with retained 3300 buildings, grading of the site and securing.

Following tendering of the enabling works, the Department proposes to enter into a contract with Island Drainage and Groundwork Ltd in the sum of £563,000. Other development costs for professional fees, asbestos analysts, asbestos survey and sampling, insurances, resident engineer and client contingency total £364,905. The Department seeks approval to the total enabling works 3305 of £927,905.

This sum is within the budget included within the approved Pink Book budget provision, as stated on pages 52 and 53 of the Isle of Man Government Budget 2009-10. The works are planned to commence on 1st March 2010, for completion by 20th December 2010. The current estimated overall development costs for proceeding with the new school proposed, as outlined, is around 3310 £11.1 million, at current cost base, including these enabling works. Contrary, however, to what has been reported in the media, I am not seeking approval from Tynwald for the £11 million scheme today.

In 2011, following clearance of the site under this scheme, detailed briefing, feasibility studies and site investigations, we will progress with full design, planning and tender occurring from 2012 3315 – with construction from 2014, for completion in July 2015 and for operation from September 2015.

Approval is now sought to progress with this enabling scheme in advance of our bringing the main scheme to Tynwald, for the following reasons: the unoccupied hospital buildings are a liability for Isle of Man Government. They will continue to deteriorate in their unoccupied state. 3320 Potential vandalism and unauthorised access, with the associated risk from asbestos and other contaminants poses a risk which is best addressed through the proposed works. The establishment of a cleared site with ground levels, ground conditions and interfaces to the adjacent retained buildings clearly identifiable, will enable the design and procurement of the new school to progress, without the design, programme and financial risks associated with a single demolition 3325 construction project.

Tynwald approval to proceed with this enabling scheme will be a key milestone in the Department’s advancement of the ultimate replacement of these two time-expired schools and enable our timely return to Tynwald for the main scheme in due course, to ultimately achieve the desired, much-needed improvements in primary educational facilities in this central Douglas 3330 catchment area.

Mr President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name The President: Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member. 3335


_________________________________________________________________ 958 T127

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks The President: Mr Braidwood. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. 3340 I am very supportive of the scheme for the enabling works for this site. It has been a long time

in coming. As the Minister said, the two schools, particularly Ballacloan, are time expired. I just hope that

when the demolition is started, the old ward block, which, of course, when the new block was built was held up by ‘acros’ and is still there and I am glad that when – I think it has been up for ten 3345 years – that ward block and the way it was constructed, it was there… so it would be enabled to be able to be converted into part of a school.

But one of the questions I would like to pose to the Minister is that, with Tynwald Street… because there are rumours going round that St. Thomas’s were looking to move into Tynwald Street, because St. Thomas’s is too small for all pupils who want to go there… 3350

Thank you, Mr President. The President: Mr Houghton, Hon. Member. Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. 3355 Equally, I am very supportive of this measure and, in particular, I would just like to

congratulate the Department for amalgamating one of the recently built ward blocks. In fact, it was the private wing, which was also built with classrooms in mind because it was always planned to put a future school there, way back now, probably 20 to 21 years ago.

You are keeping up with that, so I congratulate you on that, unlike the Department of Home 3360 Affairs, of course, who had that structural unit built at the prison that was going to be moved elsewhere, that could be an extension of the custody suite at Police Headquarters now, if was dismantled and moved there, and could be a saving to Government. So well done to Education for keeping its word over 21 years, sir.

3365 The President: Mr Cretney, Hon. Member. Mr Cretney: Thank you, Mr President. Obviously, I am supporting the resolution which is in front of Hon. Members today. I would

just ask the Minister if she could ensure that the contractors, when they are on site… This, no 3370 doubt, will create quite a lot of noise and disturbance. There are a number of elderly people who live adjacent to the site, and if liaison with the residents adjacent could be carried out, that would be a good thing.

The President: Mr Downie, Hon. Member. 3375 Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. Like the previous speaker, Mr Cretney, both him and I, I think, were former pupils of both

Tynwald Street and Demesne Road School – lots of merry memories there, but I think if you look at the potential for brown field development at those two sites, and bearing in mind we are going 3380 to be asked, later on, to support a new Department of Economic Development, here is an opportunity to get rid of two what are really redundant schools.

Although the Department has been very, very good in recent years and spent a reasonable amount of money on them, I think we would all agree that they are well past their sell-by date. I applaud the Department for carrying out the promise that they took and they gave to this Court 3385 some 19 years ago, (Interjection) when we all agreed to progress the new central ward block at Noble’s Hospital with a provision that it was going to be turned into a school.

So here we are, 19 years ago: we perhaps have not got there as quickly as we thought we would, but look at the time it has arrived at! We have got a falling off in the construction industry – this is going to provide work. It will generate income in the economy, the people employed here 3390 will take the money home and spend it in the economy. So it is a very, very good way of Government investing, both in the future of education and, of course, spending a bit more in the economy – speculating to accumulate. So I am fully in support of the…

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Waft. 3395


_________________________________________________________________ 959 T127

Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. Also an ex pupil of Demesne Road and Tynwald Street. It will probably put 50 pence on my

book now: it will be of historical value! I am just delighted to find that they have included here the special needs area. This is for the 3400

future, of course, but it is essential, even at that stage of schooling. I would like the Minister to show that there are adequate parking facilities and there will be

adequate parking facilities in the future. The flow of traffic could be quite problematic. I am thinking of Ballakermeen and the surrounds there, which had a tremendous impetus up there with regard to traffic. 3405

There are existing situations or facilities in that area at the moment – dentistry and different places, physio and all the rest of it. I presume they will all be gone by then and they have found a resting place for them. I do not know what the situation is. The Minister for Health is shaking his head, so I do not know exactly what is going on, but I am sure if you work together something can be worked out, but I would hate it to lie. 3410

With regard to the future of the school, I think it will be tremendous for the area. It is obviously in a prime place for the catchment area, as has been seen by the other schools. The play area, I see, looks like a football ground, but I presume, when you do build schools, you take into consideration the number of pupils and the play area necessary and the fields necessary, so you have got to think to the future and what will be required in another five years’ time. I look at the 3415 situation with what is going to happen in five years’ time, what is going to happen to the old schools, what the properties are going to be looked at…

On the whole, I am thoroughly delighted with this and would hope that, really… You have got another five years of Tynwald Street and Demesne Road Schools – pardon me if I use the old usage – but there are still children in there, there are still children working under those conditions, 3420 so do not neglect the present situation.

Thank you. The President: Mr Quirk Hon. Member. 3425 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. I, too, congratulate the Minister and really congratulate her on issuing the plan, which I think

was largely self-explanatory and is complementary to the notes. I, too, like the Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, say that the value for money exercise

taken on the original building that was built there, I am glad that is encompassed in there… My 3430 only small reservation is – like the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Waft – regarding the facilities for sport. I know there is the old car park which goes down the lane there and I just wonder whether… has the Minister got any plans for the future, because sometimes we build the schools, and we forget that people do enjoy sport and like to get outside and I would not like us to lose something else that was, maybe, available under Government control. 3435

Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr President. I think the Department is doing the right thing here, and it has taken quite a long time to get

round to it. This was going to be the site of the new hospital, we might remember, until somebody hacked through an electricity cable and probably brought a few people near to death who were in 3440 there at the time.

I just have a couple of queries on this. This ground to the rear of the school slopes down considerably and, if a playing field is being put on there, does this mean there will be a lot of earth movement – either earth build-up or earth removal – in order to get a flat pitch? Otherwise, they would be standing sideways. (Interjection) 3445

The parking question, as well, I think is important, very important, as far as schools are concerned, and looking at this diagram here it certainly does not seem to provide sufficient parking. I know there is not a lot of parking for either of the present schools, of course; nevertheless, I would like to see more parking than that and the parking area that was to the eastern side of the school has gone, of course. 3450

As far as those acro props are concerned, I understood that they were on hire to the DHSS all those years ago. I wonder if they have been paying that hire fee ever since!

The President: Mr Speaker. 3455 The Speaker: Yes, without being repetitive, on the existing building and the use of it, I think

we will remember, at the time that the new ward block was specifically put up with detachable


_________________________________________________________________ 960 T127

interior walls that could be removed, I just wonder is the building going to be used in that way, as a shell? Can the Minister indicate that, by this wise decision that was made some years ago, is she able to say how much less the overall project of £11.1 million is, compared to what it would have 3460 been? She might not be able to say, but I think it would be of interest, in terms of supporting the original decision those years ago.

Similarly, over the area for a playing field, I do remember, when I was in the Department of Education, I know it was an issue that we might be building a school in the future on this site that did not comply with the optimum acreage in open space and play area. I wonder has anything 3465 changed in that regard, because it certainly seems like – I cannot quite read the dimensions – but a 40m x 70 m football pitch, how that actually compares with the modern standards for primary schools, which I think we need a six- or seven-acre site in total for modern requirements?

The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member. 3470 Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. I think it is only right to congratulate the Department on this, and certainly at the moment,

when we are talking about so many cutbacks, it shows that we are focused on committing to front-line services and assets, so I am very supportive of that. 3475

I also think it is nice to see that this is being built right in the heart of the community and, quite the opposite to what Mr Callister was saying, I think there is probably less of a need for car-parking spaces here in the fact that it is so close to a great deal of the housing nearby that the school is going to serve.

I do not think there is probably anywhere in Britain that has seen so much investment in new 3480 schools and extensions to schools as we have had here, and I think that can only be welcomed.

It is pleasing to note local contractors have been appointed to carry out the work, and that is something I am supportive of.

I know the detail will come a lot later, but will the Department be continuing the policy of making the facilities available out of hours, such as the pitches and things? Again, that will be 3485 coming later on. Again, I fully endorse the fact that this is being built right in the heart of the area it is serving.

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill. 3490 Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I am confident the response will be a ‘yes’ to this, but could the Minister confirm that the

policy remains that the design of this school will be such that independent access to facilities which the Youth Service or the sports clubs might wish to let will be built in and there would be no capacity for effectively a veto from the head teacher, or indeed the caretaker, in this or, indeed, 3495 any other school, sir?

The President: Mr Butt, Hon. Member. Mr Butt: Thank you, Mr President. 3500 I also will support this motion and I could give some information on the nature of the sports

field, but I will not steal the Minister’s thunder. I am sure she is going to reply. My thunder has been stolen by my colleague on my left, Mr Turner – about parking. I just was

going to comment on the fact that people are obsessed about places needing parking spaces, planners as well as designers of buildings. Surely this is an area where, in the middle of a built up 3505 area, children should walk to school. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) This is the ideal place to reduce the car parking space, or let it out to the private sector and earn some money, perhaps, and stop people actually taking cars to a place like this.

I had the pleasure this week, or earlier – last week – of spending a morning at Demesne Road School, or Ballacloan, with the Minister, and I must say it is a fantastic school, very light and 3510 lively, very bright pupils who were very well motivated – but it is physically very restrictive. There is no grassed area, no flowers, nothing of any pleasant nature at all. Obviously, it has served very well for over 100 years but I am sure the new school will be much more appreciated by the pupils.

3515 The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.


_________________________________________________________________ 961 T127

I am supportive, and we are lucky that we have got some cash in the Education ‘budget’ to be able to do this and at this particular point in our fiscal diary. Very welcome, indeed. If anyone is in 3520 any doubt, just go and ask the staff in either of the two schools or go and have a visit yourself to see exactly what the conditions are like and what people have had to put up with. So, a very welcome initiative in that regard and an urgent one, if I can put it like that, in educational terms.

I think, while we are all having a bit of a history lesson, Eaghtyrane, I just want to put on the record in the background… I remember the initial meetings over at DoLGE when I was in 3525 Education the first time round, a long time ago, with Dr Mann in particular and the then director, Ralph Cowin, and the deputy, John Cain, in looking at the first take of an idea as to what to do with the Noble’s site, so a little bit of credit there in the background for those people who had the vision to say: ‘Look, we need to talk to the DHSS. There is a terrible need with the two schools in question.’ We have struggled along for all those years, really, and the pressure is becoming greater 3530 and greater, to the point now where we just have to get on with it and bite the bullet on it. However, it does generate business and jobs and gets the construction industry engaged.

Parking… I think we have got to be mercenary about this. The two schools now have parking issues, and we can put up with it. I am sure we can put up with it there. It certainly is within walking distance of many of the pupils, in any case, but I think it is a small price to pay for what 3535 we are going to get out of it, and considering what we have had to put up with… and raise the learning environment for the kids involved here and give them that little bit extra, Eaghtyrane.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 3540 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think it is important that we do read the Agenda paper. What we

have got here is £1 million to clear the site: we have not got the £10 million to actually build the site and I just would like to make a couple of points.

One is how does – we have allowed for another £1 million with the revenue liability, as far as the new secondary school at Onchan. The situation will be that we have got to come back with 3545 another £10 million later on, so I think we do not want to end up with a situation like we have had a presentation at dinner time, with Summerland, where we were told we were paying 800 to get rid of Summerland, and that was just to get rid of the asbestos and everybody still voted for it. I just think it is important that we realise that we are spending £1 million to clear the site.

The second thing I would just like to ask the Shirveishagh Ynsee is the issue of the… there was 3550 some talk about the central administration block being registered.

I do hope that these issues have been addressed, in order to make sure that it does not slow up the costings, because if there is a delay in your contract and that happens, then it will be more than £1 million to get an empty site. As I say, it is not building skill, it is clearing the site for nearly £1 million: you are going to have find £10 million later on… 3555

The President: Minister to reply. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I thank all Hon. Members for their support. I think in a way, perhaps I have confused the issue 3560

in trying to be helpful by circulating these two site maps because, of course, what you have before you, whilst there is an outline of the demolition area, the other plan is purely an indicative site map. It is nothing planned. We yet have to do all of that work and it was just merely to indicate how a school will fit into that site at this stage.

If I might just pick up on Members’ comments. Mr Braidwood referred to the demolition of the 3565 site and he was pleased that it is going to be finally converted into a school. He did refer to St Thomas’s and I would say, Mr President, that many Members in this Court have a much longer history associated with the development of this site as a school than I have. Indeed, I understand that there was, long years ago – perhaps even in the time when you, Mr President, were Minister for Education – some conversation with St Thomas’s about whether they would wish to consider 3570 the Fairfield School as a replacement for their own school.

Now, that does not mean that Fairfield School as it stands today, for the school population that we have in it, continues to be a feasible learning environment for us. If we were to vacate it, it would still and could be offered up to St Thomas’s but it would be up to them as to whether they would wish to take that and whether, in fact… I believe that the work could be done to 3575 accommodate smaller numbers of children. Of course, if we were to be able to progress with the Noble’s school and we have playing fields or a playing area there, a green site there, then they will be able to come across and use it, which, of course, is another problem with St Thomas’s, as they do not have a blade of grass in their playground, either. So that is all for future discussion.


_________________________________________________________________ 962 T127

Mr Houghton commented that the ward block was created to be part of a new school and, as 3580 we have heard, this has been going on now for 19 or 20 years.

I thank Mr Cretney for his comments about contractors being cognisant of the neighbours alongside. I think that is Hillside Avenue alongside, isn’t it, and that is something I am happy to take back.

I thank Mr Downie for his supportive remarks. 3585 Again, for Mr Waft, I can… One of the proposals on this… He referred to the concern he had

about the flow of traffic and car parking, and that is looking a little bit in advance of where we are today because, as Mr Karran has rightly pointed out, what we are looking at here now is being able to clear what is a contaminated site at the moment. We do need to have a conversation with DoLGE and we need to have a conversation with DHSS because, if we are going to consider the 3590 future needs of parking, there is a question as to whether, in fact… As I think Mr Callister rightly said, the back of that building is very sloped. This pitch that is indicated here could, in fact, be built on top of a car park, and that is a conversation that we need to have – whether it will be at ground level, in which case children will go down to it, or whether in fact it will be sited on top of the potential car park. This is just indicative, but we will bear those things in mind when we come 3595 to that planning stage.

I think it was Mr Waft who mentioned about the use of the Noble’s site, and there are a few services of the DHSS still there at the present time, but I have the assurance of the Health Minister that they will be well away before the bulldozers come in, so we are clear there.

Mr Quirk, I think, referred again to Ballacloan and the need for car parking and the good 3600 school that we have got there at the present time. I think, as I say, all of those things are issues that we will take into account when we come back with a comprehensive plan, Mr President.

Mr Callister, as I referred to and covered, referred to the sloping issue of the site and whether there would be a need to build that up, but I think I have covered that issue now.

Mr Speaker has probably more knowledge than I do about the formation of the classrooms and 3605 the fact that it was intended that there would be a shell, effectively, for the school to operate within. I do not have any information on that, Mr Speaker, and I am afraid that that is something that we would have to come back on.

At this point, as I say, we are looking to the clearance of the site. We have looked at the playing field and we do think that there is ample space there to be able to accommodate a playing 3610 field and play area on that site now.

Mr Turner said, quite rightly, schools should be built in the heart of the community, and it really is good to be able to re-create a Douglas school in the heart of Douglas. He, along with Mr Gill, referred to the facilities that would be made available here and I can confirm that there would be out of hours facilities. We would ensure that they could be let, as per all the Department’s 3615 sporting facilities in particular, wherever we can. Mr Gill was keen that they should have independent access and, of course, that is something that we bear very much in mind these days because it is no good if you have, for example, to have the whole of the school on one heating system, when you only want to use one eighth of it and use sports facilities without having to access the rest of the school. So it is an important design issue these days, to have things just like 3620 changing rooms, completely separate from school facilities.

Again, my colleague on the Department, Mr Butt, referred to the question of parking and quite rightly said, well, in that sort of central area we would hope that children would be walking to school. In fact, it is one of the few schools that I do see children walking to in the morning, so let us hope that that will continue. 3625

Mr Henderson referred to the learning environment at Ballacloan at the present time and in Fairfield as well. As Mr Butt said, we, as a Department, visited Ballacloan last week and we were really pleased to see the teaching and learning that was going on there. The environment: whilst the building itself is tired, we are managing to keep a good working environment. It is bright, it is cheerful and I think benefited, really, from a facelift that was done a few years ago when it had its 3630 hundredth birthday. So that is something we cannot let their classroom environment slip on a promise that this is going to come in five years’ time.

Mr Karran reminded us that, in fact, quite rightly – he has gone now, unfortunately – but quite rightly, the motion today is about the clearance of the site. We have got a contaminated site here: I make no apology for the fact that it is nearly £1 million. The fact is that it has been a hospital, it 3635 has got asbestos there: we do need to make sure that we clear this properly and carefully. As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that the central administration block has ever been registered and I look forward to the swift action of the contractors to make sure it is not demolished – or not registered – before we hope to move in and demolish it next month!

With that, Mr President, I thank you and beg to move. 3640


_________________________________________________________________ 963 T127

The President: The motion, Hon. Members, is printed at Item 5 on the Order Paper: that Tynwald approves of the Department of Education incurring expenditure not exceeding £927,905 on the ‘Noble’s New Primary School – Enabling Works’ scheme. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

DHSS Supplementary Vote Motion carried

6. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move:

That Tynwald authorises the Treasury to apply from General Revenue the sum of £8,500,000 3645 being the additional amount required by the Department of Health and Social Security in respect of excess expenditure incurred in the provision of its services. The President: Item 6. Minister for Health and Social Security to move, please. Mr Teare. 3650 The Minister for Health and Social Security (Mr Teare): Thank you, Mr President. It need hardly be said to Hon. Members that the expenditure of the DHSS is, by a considerable

margin, the largest departmental budget within the Isle of Man Government. It may, therefore, at least initially, come as a surprise to some Members that the Department has to seek a supplementary funding today for the financial year 2009-10 of £8½ million. As I am about to set 3655 out, Mr President, the reasons can be very clearly demonstrated.

The single largest component of the supplementary vote is an amount of £3.5 million which the Department requires to meet costs in respect of health service and also Whitley Council personnel, incurred as a consequence of a revision to salary levels. Ordinarily, where increased staff costs arise as a consequence of agreed pay awards, funding would be made at the outset of the financial 3660 year by the Treasury. In 2009-10, it was decided by the Treasury that, for reasons which I fully understand, past practice should not be followed. The Department endeavoured to contain the 3% pay award applicable to these staff groups within its overall salary class. Regrettably, this simply did not prove possible. For both Whitley Council workers and nursing staff, this was the final year of a three-year pay agreement. 3665

The second element of the supplementary vote, Mr President, is an amount of £2 million, which equates to the increased costs of our patients when they are referred to hospitals in the UK for treatment. This is specialist treatment which it is not possible to deliver on the Island. Many Hon. Members are aware of the increasing complexity of medical treatment. Whilst, on the one hand, it is cause for celebration that we can make extensive specialist treatment available to the 3670 people of the Island, of course this comes at a price. In the current financial year, the amount expended on this treatment has exceeded the budget allowance by £2 million, and that is why I am seeking this amount within the supplementary vote. However, I am pleased to be able to reassure Hon. Members that, for many months now, and at no cost to the Department, an independent specialist has been auditing the charging arrangements that are billed to us by UK hospital trusts 3675 and which are co-ordinated by the North West Specialist Commissioning Team.

That audit has confirmed that the charges levied against the Department are both accurate and reasonable. The amount required within the supplementary vote is simply because of increased volumes of patients being sent by the Island to the UK and the increasing cost of specialist treatments. 3680

Mr President, the remaining £3 million comprises three items, each at a cost of £1 million. All three are as a consequence of external factors beyond the control of the Department. First is the H1N1 swine flu pandemic. The Department incurred increased costs of £1 million in preparing for, and managing the effects of, swine flu in the Island. It is certainly the case that, relative to some parts of the world and indeed relative to many parts of the United Kingdom, the effects of 3685 the pandemic were less severely felt in the Isle of Man. Nonetheless, it would have been gravely remiss of the Department and its Public Health Directorate, which led these matters, if significant preparations and management for a pandemic had not been undertaken. I am again pleased to report to Hon. Members that much of the expenditure in this area is able to be utilised and does not represent a wasted investment. The personal protective equipment acquired for health 3690 professionals at Noble’s and in the community is available for use in the longer term. Infrastructure changes on some of the wards within Noble’s Hospital remain available for any outbreak of a major communicable disease. The Director of Public Health is also in discussion


_________________________________________________________________ 964 T127

with the Department of Health in the United Kingdom regarding the possible return of H1N1 vaccines that it would appear are no longer required. 3695

The remaining two components of the supplementary votes, which are again each of £1 million, are both as a consequence of recent pressures on global economies generally and the Isle of Man in particular. National Insurance payments to Health were £1 million less than the levels that were predicted for this current financial year. This is fairly and squarely attributable, Mr President, to a downturn in economic growth and the consequential effects on employment. The 3700 Department has also felt the effects of the financial pressure from the reverse side of that coin. Revenue-funded benefits have run at a greater level than expected for the same reasons, to the extent that expenditure has been £1 million greater than was planned. The Department is not in a position to deny such payments.

Consequently, Mr President, as Hon. Members are aware, these various components require 3705 the Department to seek a supplementary vote of £8.5 million. I am sure that Hon. Members will realise that I could not seek this supplementary vote unless I was absolutely satisfied that the Department had no other option. I am so satisfied, Mr President. The provision of a widely available and comprehensive health and social care regime to the people of the Isle of Man is at the very heart of the objectives of this Government. 3710

It goes without saying that the delivery of those services should be undertaken effectively, efficiently and with maximum targeting to achieve maximum benefit for the people who require the services. The Department will continue to operate in that way but, in the interim, Mr President, and for the reasons which I have set out very clearly, the supplementary vote for the financial year 2009-10 is absolutely required. Consequently, Mr President, I beg to move this motion standing in 3715 my name.

The President: Hon. Member Mr Crowe. Mr Crowe: Thank you, Mr President. 3720 In seconding this motion submitted by my hon. friend and colleague, Mr Teare, the Minister

for DHSS, I would just like to share some facts concerning Health Services with hon. colleagues which show some achievements in the last few years, a period in which the DHSS has successfully led within its budgets and has not had to seek supplementary votes.

Mr President, Health Services activity has increased such, that compared with January 2007, 3725 Noble’s Hospital now admits more than 500 more surgical patients and 400 more day cases and sees nearly 6,000 more outpatient cases each year, of which 3,000 are new referrals. In addition, x-ray activity has increased by nearly 4,000, to over 43,000, and pathology is dealing with 18,000 more requests. At the same time, through good use of waiting list initiatives and the additional activity I have described, waiting times for many key procedures, such as orthopaedics and 3730 cataracts, have fallen.

Mr President, turning now to primary and community care. The number of patients awaiting allocation to an NHS dentist has fallen to an all-time low of little more than 500, a position which has improved considerably since August 2004, when over 9,000 people were awaiting allocation to an NHS dentist. 3735

Our GPs have also been working hard to improve the efficiency of their prescribing, through the prescribing efficiency scheme, which encourages the use of generic, as opposed to branded, medicines. This has produced very significant savings and a performance which would be the envy of many in the UK National Health Service.

All the while, too, the number of consultations, the number of prescriptions issued and 3740 dispensed and the number of patients cared for by our community nursing services have increased.

Mr President, the DHSS has always been an evolving body. Each administration, each minister, when in charge – and I give due credit to them for their commitment – they always have problems to face but meeting and solving those problems and challenges was the order of the day, but always bringing incremental changes and improvements to this evolving organisation. 3745

Mr President, our current position of nearly achieving a balanced budget this year, over-running by about six days of expenditure, Mr President, has of course been achieved with the support of Tynwald Members and the Council of Ministers, notably the DHSS Minister, Mr Teare, and also, of course, Mr Bell, the Treasury Minister, who holds the purse strings, in ensuring that the Health Service is funded. That we now have to seek further support in the form of a 3750 supplementary vote is therefore despite the best efforts of the officers and staff of the DHSS, the political Members and of this Hon. Court.

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan.


_________________________________________________________________ 965 T127

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I have to say that we have got no choice but to support this proposal 3755 in front of us today, but I think it is important that the Shirveishagh tells us how he is going to remedy these situations, as far as next year’s Budget is concerned. What I feel needs to be addressed with this, while totally supporting the principles and understanding, and that is why I have not been too hard on the Minister for the last three years, (Laughter) as far as the health service is concerned, because I know what he has inherited. Many of the things he inherited are 3760 from times when his boss was in charge of the Health Services. So, all I want to know, Eaghtyrane, is how is he going to get around the issues of trying to get good efficient management.

We take, for example, pay increases. The Agenda for Change must have put millions onto the debt originally of the pay, as far as the Health Services are concerned. We had people actually – and it is not dog in the manger, it is not being green eyed or whatever about people getting money 3765 – it is about protecting the rights of the taxpayers’ interests, where you see people getting £40,000 or £60,000 worth of back pay on that issue, and that came about, in my opinion, because of the bad management structure. All we saw there was Agenda for Change to look after the ones at the top and when we have the present management structure, do not expect anything else. We have seen that with the Chief Officer Group and what I want to know from the Minister of the DHSS is are 3770 we going to have some serious reorganisation?

I have to be honest with you, if there is a £2 million overspend next year, even allowing for my stance on the Budget for patients going to centres of excellence in order to save their lives, that is the price we have got to pay. I have got no problem with that, but what I do have a problem with, is that stuff from 20 years ago, like Social Services. The fact with Social Services, you need to put 3775 in the right administration. Any sensible democracy would have a Social Services committee with lay input in there, so that when the management is not doing the job right, there is someone for the lower management to be able to go and say, well, this is not on. I believe that is part of the problem that is going to have to be addressed. I also feel that what I think we have got to recognise from this debate with this £3½ million, as far as pay, we cannot do anything about. Obviously, the 3780 fact of an Agenda of Change made a big difference, and made a big difference because it did not just give rich pickings to the ones at the top, who I see as one of the biggest dangers to the commitment, the long-term commitment, to a welfare state and a welfare Health Service – but also it creates such a bad agenda as far as the rest of our staff. I hope that the Minister of the DHSS will be looking collectively with his Council of Ministers, that if we are going to have problems with 3785 the pay increases in the future, maybe next year we will get away with a zero pay increase which will be great, as far as trying to make sure that we keep our commitments to the services, but the situation should be… is across the board payment. At the moment, when we add insult to injury after the agenda to change, as far as most of the people who actually do the work in the Health Services – you have got the situation, the 5% of a Chief Executive’s pay on £100,000 is a damn 3790 sight more than 5% of a cleaner’s pay at £17,000, but a loaf of bread is the same price!

I think what we should be taking from this debate today, we have got to support it but we have also got to see proper joined-up Government, as far how we are going to address it. I hope that the Minister, as the biggest employer, is putting his penny’s worth into the Council of Ministers about if we are going to end up with pay increases, we have got to look at an idea of getting everyone 3795 together, everyone understanding the situation, and that means that management must not be allowed to create its own agenda for itself and its own pay for itself and have a different pay for the rest of the workers there.

I note the issues about the receipts on National Insurance contributions and I think that whilst, I suppose, one can be repetitious as far as the issue, I have no problem. I get past the maximum pay, 3800 as far contributions for National Insurance contributions. I think that we should be putting that in. The upper limit should purely be another backhanded subsidy, in order that we can help the Minister for the DHSS. If there is a £1 million shortfall, then we who are on £40,000-odd a year should be able to, and the rest of society should see that as our commitment, as the strong, to protect the weak. 3805

Eaghtyrane, the thing I would just also like to ask the Minister is has he… He said there has been independent external audit, as far as this service from the United Kingdom is concerned, but has he got anywhere near bringing about those changes so that we actually have not layers of management who all have to go and have meetings with layers of management, who have to have meetings with more layers of management? Will he try and wake up to the idea of ownership, as 3810 far as the DHSS is concerned, and the idea that we should be bringing lay input in and bringing the wealth of knowledge outside this Hon. Court and outside the employ of the DHSS and restructuring the DHSS so that we can actually address the issues of where we are wasteful in the Health Services?


_________________________________________________________________ 966 T127

Eaghtyrane, I would just also like to say that I would be interested to know from the Minister 3815 what are we going to do about the amount of assets that the likes of the DHSS has, as far as stuff that is lying empty. I would love to see a real change in policy, and one of the concerns I have with an Item that is coming up on the Agenda later on is we have got the likes of the drug rehabilitation centre, a £1½ million asset that has been empty for four years. I am led to believe there are problems now with it, after being on about it for the last 18 months. Listen, the person who has not 3820 made a mistake has not done anything. The problem is in this Court often you try and make out that you can cover anything up, as far as the mistakes that happen, and you would be far better learning from the mistakes.

Let’s find out how we are going to deal with the likes of that building in particular, and there are other buildings the DHSS has, so then we can learn from those mistakes and not keep on 3825 falling down the same bear pits time and time again, because I believe that, if we address those issues, some of these other issues can be absorbed, as far as some of these losses.

I have no problems with supporting this proposal in front of us today, but I just make a plea that will we see, if we are in difficult times, I think it is important that we recognise we are in difficult times. We cannot afford the luxury of vanity over sanity. We cannot afford to carry on too 3830 many services that we pay as taxpayers, champagne costs, and get brown stout services. I just think he talks about his private enterprise and he is the whizz kid from outside, he has been in a bank. I want to see some of those goods, so that all of us… If 95%, if not more, of this Court has this commitment, a sincere commitment to a welfare state and a national health service, as me, but we do not address those core issues, next year, you might find you are a bit like Mother Hubbard 3835 and there is not anything in the cupboard, in order to sort this out!

I believe that is why we need to hear what is his proactive approach, so that we address these issues, so it does not happen next year.

The President: Mr Henderson. 3840 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. It may come as a surprise that I am standing here and I am actually going to fully support the

Health Minister, not just because I am on the Department – and I do not mind stating that I am. What I do not like to hear and what I will stand up – and have done for the past 10 years – is when 3845 we have complete and utter misrepresentation of a situation and we could not have had a bigger misrepresentation of the situation than just now, Eaghtyrane. I think it is grossly unfair of Mr Karran to actually paint that large canvas that he has just dished out into the public arena for everyone to hear and made it sound like, in fact, there is huge squandering waste going on in the DHSS, that there is layer upon layer of this kind of management and all the rest of it and nobody is 3850 doing anything to make any savings.

He has pulled the MHKs’ salaries back in the equation and, with regard to that, Eaghtyrane, I would say to him, if you hire yourself a fully qualified, experienced master painter these days, or a painter and decorator or electrician, they will charge a minimum £20 upwards: if you multiply that by a 40-hour week and see how close to a basic politician’s wage you get, it will not be far away, 3855 so we are not on huge hundreds of thousands of dollars, as he would like to give out to the public.

Anyway, back to the situation. The Health Minister has come here with a proposal with regard to exceptional circumstances beyond the DHSS’s control. There is nothing that he or anyone else, bar an act of God, could have done to prevent what has happened to the Department and there is nothing else he could have done, bar come here and ask this hon. place for a little bit of support in 3860 regard to managing our way through this particular issue. Nothing else whatsoever.

It is not a case of bad management, bad this, bad the other. The Minister has outlined the issues with the pay rise, with the one-offs that have befallen us with the swine flu issue and the other points.

It is our duty, and certainly I have always believed, that we support the Health Service, no 3865 matter what. Not to the extent of wastage, but certainly in these matters. This is not about wastage, Eaghtyrane, this is about the issues that the Minister laid out and I am sure he will relay them out in his winding-up speech for the public to hear… that this is not about asking for £8 million plus. This is not about asking for that money to cover wastage, fat in the system. It is not about that and we need to make that very, very clear. It is disappointing to hear that it has actually been spun the 3870 other way.

Now, in relation to Mr Karran’s input, where he gives it very large portions of spin about cutting the fat out and making savings, and he wants to see this, and he wants to see that, the DHSS has not got Jurby air hangars lying empty all over the place… Far from it! There might be


_________________________________________________________________ 967 T127

the issue with the drug and alcohol unit – fair dos. However, again, the spin is that there is vast 3875 quantities of property lying empty costing everyone millions – and that is not the case. Far from it.

However, what I can say, Eaghtyrane, is I have had the very, very uncomfortable pleasure, if you like, of standing in front of a room full of staff, having to try and explain to them that the money is about to dry up and we need to come up with some savings initiatives and keep driving the savings initiatives forward. Those staff have taken that on board and all credit to them for 3880 doing that in the ideas generation system that is ongoing in the DHSS at the minute.

It might not seem like much is happening from the outside, but I can assure you that the cosh is very much on in the inside. I am sure the Minister will explain that a little further: I am sure it has particularly angered him, actually, to say that nothing is happening when, in fact, a lot is happening and, as I say, it is one of my more unpleasant political experiences having to try and 3885 explain to staff they are actually in a very precarious position at the minute and we need to do all that we can to identify savings, do things more efficiently and run with the ideas that they are actually generating now… and not being able to confirm, at the very end of it all, that there may not… there is still no guarantee that there will not be redundancies but we are trying our very level best to steer well away from that and do what we need to do now in order to straighten the 3890 equation, rather than go down that route.

So it is grossly unfair, Eaghtyrane, to say that nothing is happening. There is a great, great deal of effort happening. Another incidence would be a committee that has been set up to look at every new job application that comes through the DHSS. That is scrutinised, tested. If it is an application to refill a post, is it still needed? Is it still needed at that grade? Can it be done part-time? Is it 3895 needed at all?

All those tests are applied and it has had some degree of success, I might hasten to add at the minute, and there are other areas being looked at, as well. So in fact, the clamour from Mr Karran is being addressed, has been addressed, and I think some credit should be given to the staff who are having to get on with this. They are not complaining, they are putting their shoulder to the 3900 wheel and have been doing for months now, not just in the last instance, but for months and they are working very, very hard to achieve those things without complaint. They are getting on with it and all credit to them. I think it is a shame that… if a section deserved a lambasting, fair enough, Eaghtyrane, but in this instance it is totally unjustified.

3905 The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Yes Mr President, I will, of course, be very happy to support the Department as

it continues to deal with what is harsh reality, in that the demand by the public for health services continues to outstrip the ability of the Department to meet the demand. It is very difficult for any 3910 Department of Health to look with confidence into the future, in terms of demand-led services, especially when it is often the case that you start a financial year with built-in shortfalls that you do know about. For example, the drugs budget; for years drug cost inflation has outstripped general inflation and it is a case continually of catch-up.

So this is the reality and no matter how assiduous in internal efficiencies a Department might 3915 be, that is what it has to deal with and I do not think it can be any surprise that the Department is in the position of asking for supplementary funding. I shall not be commenting on the element of £2 million, which is purely to do with Social Security costs, which clearly are a product of the economic conditions and demand for certain Social Security benefits, over which the Department has absolutely no control. 3920

I would just ask a couple of points in a couple of areas. The first is the £3.5 million obligation from the last element of an agreed three-year Agenda for Change pay award, which Treasury had concurred with, the costs of which were fully known at the start of the financial year. It is not like there was a future pay award that would have to be absorbed and I just wonder how reasonable – notwithstanding the statement and the explanatory memorandum that for 2009-10, ideally, 3925 Departments would meet such pay award costs from within overall budgets, this has not proved possible – and how realistic was it, knowing that this award had been agreed – because nothing could be done about it – that the Department should start the year saddled with that known debt, and to be able to absorb that within normal operations – a known shortfall, in other words?

The second area I would just ask the Minister to comment on relates to the further sum of £2 3930 million that is being sought to meet the cost of Manx patients receiving elective treatment in the UK. The North West Health Trust Commissioning Area: according to the Pink Book, costs under the heading ‘Patient travel and UK treatments’ on page 41 of the Budget Pink Book, the sum for this in the year 2008-09 was £7.8 million. The estimate for 2009-10, however, was £5.3 million, and I just wonder if the Minister could say why the estimate for this year is £2½ million less than 3935


_________________________________________________________________ 968 T127

last year. I am wondering if it is to do with company travel and the way that that is being addressed. I believe that is of the order of £3 million a year, accompanied travel to the UK for escorts. Perhaps he could indicate if that is included in that figure, but the basic question is why was the estimate for 2009-10 £2½ million less than the year before, and why is the estimate for 2010-11 £10.4 million? Does the £10.4 million take account of the £2.9 funding by the UK that is 3940 to end from 1st April so that the £2.9 million has been… that is what lifts next year’s figure? Perhaps he can just confirm that that is the case, but why are we in the position of seeking £2 million more for this year, when the estimate for this year was apparently £2½ million less than for last year?

Thank you, Mr President. 3945 The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Cannan: Mr President, the provision of healthcare to our people in the Isle of Man cannot,

I believe, be denied through cost. I do not believe anyone in this Court would pass by on the other 3950 side if they saw one of our fellow citizens in need of health care. It is part of our commitment – or certainly my commitment – to the community which I represent, and of which I have always said there must be a Health Service and a commitment to it.

So there is a cost, but what people complain to me about when the cost of the Health Service is talked about – and whether it is perception rather than fact – is that there is an overburdensome 3955 bureaucracy: and just one instance, there was on the internet the other day, on one of those chat shows, forums or whatever, a nurse. She did not give her name, obviously, and she wrote and gave the story: she said ‘I am a qualified nurse at Noble’s. I am accountable to my team leader, who is then accountable to the deputy ward manager, who is accountable to the ward manager, who is then accountable to the sector nurse and then accountable’ – unfortunately, I have not taken a 3960 print-out – ‘to the hospital manager!’ And she said all this bureaucracy, and she had entered nursing to look after the sick and not to continually fill in forms.

Now, obviously, there is a need to fill in forms, as well. But that was what was on the internet, fact or fiction, or half fact and half perception, I do not know, but people talk about it. But nobody, nobody denies people health care, and we cannot and must not deny people health care. If there is 3965 an extra cost, then other Government services will have to be trimmed to meet it. (Interjection)

I will tell you: if you give me the books, I will tell you which Departments… We have already got a Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry properly reduced. The fact is that healthcare, and I am sorry the Treasury Minister seems to think that he would deny people healthcare per cost. 3970

Mr Bell: I was asking you a question: which Department will you cut? Mr Cannan: Throughout the other Departments, because health is a priority. Health is a

priority. As I have just said, I certainly would not pass by on the other side, if somebody was 3975 crying out for healthcare.

Having said all that, I fully support what is there. Part of this Supplementary Vote is for Social Security, and this reinforces the point that we need a dynamic private sector economy, because if there is any upturn in unemployment, this is where the Social Security benefits budget will go astray. I have been here when Social Security benefits were a matter of deep concern, because 3980 there were 2,500 people unemployed. That is what will be crippling, and so it is essential – I have said it before and I have said time and time again – the driving force of economic development and full employment. Actually it is rather sad at the moment – it is very sad – to see that there has been a small increase in unemployment.

Budgeting: you cannot budget for health. If a family has three children, they do not know and 3985 cannot determine whether one of those children will fall sick in the year or not. None of us here can determine with real accuracy the requirements for healthcare. We make a very good estimate. I have confidence in the Minister that he is doing his best, but I do not believe that he can actually estimate how many people will need elective medical treatment in the UK. I have been a beneficiary of it. I did not know it was going to happen to me. It just happened and it could 3990 happen, and does happen, to so many other people.

But I say this Court must support the provision of healthcare. I urge the Minister to look again at the management structure. It is not the first time this has been mentioned to him – not by me, but by dozens of people – the management structure.

There is one matter that has come to my attention: that senior executives in the Department 3995 have salary protection, regardless of their duties, whether they increase for the next 10 years.


_________________________________________________________________ 969 T127

Mr Henderson: All Government staff have got that. Mr Cannan: All Government have it! Salary protection. Now, that is a big, big salary

commitment. However, I just commented on it. I did not realise that chief executives earning 4000 £90,000 or £100,000 a year had salary protection for 10 years. (Interjection) None of us, not even in here, have salary protection –

The President: Hon. Members, if you stop the backchat, maybe Mr Cannan will get on – and a

little closer to the motion, sir. (Laughter and interjections) 4005 Mr Cannan: I am closer to the motion, in the sense that it hadn’t occurred to me, Mr

President, that the salary protection of the executives in the DHSS was a fact. I had heard rumour. I am now informed about it and it is the salary bill that is part of the problem. But the essential is for medical front-line services. 4010

The President: Mr Waft, Hon. Member. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. Just to clarify a few points, with regard to the naming of the staffing levels and the changing 4015

roles and names of the roles of the people in their situation: they used to have girls at Noble’s Hospital – they called them ‘pinkies’ at that time. They were all dressed in pink, and then they changed the role again. Then they used to wear black stockings; then they were not allowed to wear black stockings, etc. But now they are all called different names and, quite honestly, I would doubt if every Member in this Court would know who the matron of the Hospital is at the moment, 4020 because they are all different namings and different deputies and nurse managers, etc.

When they go for their training, now the tutors need to bring the students up to more or less degree level, to let them progress their career. They have three choices when they go into the training: it is either education, or stay on the wards, or go into administration. Some of them would like to stay on the wards – they do not want to move from the wards, they are quite happy there. 4025 Others want to go into administration, and education, certainly good levels of pay for those who are qualified – doubly qualified in most cases.

My colleague from Onchan keeps referring back to the old administration committees. They used to come round the wards every now and again. I think it was every couple of months the administration committee would appear, with people from all over the Island, north, south, east 4030 and west. I think the Chief Minister would know the times of the administration committee. Nevertheless, they were an added layer of bureaucracy that had to be dealt with, and they were dealt with accordingly.

The pay awards that have been mentioned: they are out of our hands, quite honestly, when they go to the agreement panels who negotiate on our behalf. We have to take the advice as to what the 4035 situation is, and, hopefully, we can constrain them in the future and be a bit better idea of making a judgement as to what the cost will be at the end of the year.

With regard to drugs and the escalating cost of drugs, I was on a select committee looking into the cost of drugs, and generic drugs was certainly the topic of the day for certain times and we did hold that price… But until every GP in the Isle of Man all prescribe for generic drugs, it was really 4040 out of our hands and we did not know what was going to happen at the end of the day. So, hopefully, with computerisation now, if you press in a certain drug for a patient up will come a little flag to say; ‘I’m sorry, this is not a generic drug: there is another one much simpler to prescribe.’

With regard to the drugs and alcohol situation, which we decided to put in at Ard Aalin, that 4045 was going on quite happily… the situation is it is not vacant, it is not an empty building. It is used during the day, to my knowledge, and the only restriction was that we tried to get it residential and, unfortunately, we never really made that because of the cost involved, as I understand. Nevertheless, I am sure that, in the future, that will be fully recognised and maybe we will get it fully residential… We used to have a residential drug and alcohol building in Ard Aalin, because I 4050 used to run it at one stage or another and it was quite satisfactory.

With regard to the motion today, I think that there are so many ramifications with this motion, and the hoops that the Minister has got to go through. Usually, you cannot guarantee what is going to happen and there will almost be this sort of situation arising from time to time. I am sure they are doing the best they can, where they can, and I have got every faith in the Minister to be doing 4055 just that now.

Thank you, Mr President.


_________________________________________________________________ 970 T127

The President: Hon. Members, I know it is difficult, but the motion is quite straightforward. It says £8.5 million be authorised. We are not really debating health services in its wide field.

Mr Crookall. 4060 Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President and I will be brief. As most Members have already said, this does really stick in the craw – it is £8.5 million – but

I do not think he is going to get an argument on it, I think it will go through. Just a couple of queries, certainly on the overspend for patients receiving elective treatment. If the Minister could 4065 just let us know how many people a year do go for that and the total cost of travel, or how many times they travel because, not only have they had the operation, but they need to go back afterwards. I would just like to know those figures.

Just to put it into perspective, I suppose, Mr Crowe, the Hon. Member, said the other day: six days’ overspend – percentage wise that is very, very low, I suppose, and congratulations to the 4070 Minister in that respect, put that way, but £8.5 million will actually nearly pay for the Minister for Education’s new school that she is looking for. Two contrasts there, but thank you. If he could –

The President: Mr Lowey, Hon. Member. 4075 Mr Crookall: – get those figures for me. He probably has not got those today, sir, but if he

could let me have them. The President: Mr Lowey. 4080 Mr Lowey: You are quite right. It is £8.5 million. My premise is simple: tax the fit, not the

sick. This is the price we have to pay for good health. The Minister is very… no matter who the Minister is, he will never ever be able to definitively

project costs to the degree of Treasury or accountancy that we somehow expect. It is impossible and especially with health. Like most people around here, in the last 12 months I have visited the 4085 Hospital on three or four occasions. I can tell you we ought to be very grateful we live in the Isle of Man for the service we receive through the National Health Service.

The Minister has spelt out today, quite clearly and concisely, where the pressures are. There is a three-year wage deal. We knew that was coming up and has to be paid for. It is the end of that three-year agreement. As far as I am concerned, that was an agreement approved by this Court and 4090 it brought stability into the workplace, it is good for the employers, good for the employees and has worked well.

The rest of it really… one point, really, while I am on my feet is to highlight those who shout for reducing and making people redundant. There is a cost to redundancy; we have seen part of it here today: £2 million extra to the Social Services. To ‘unemploy’ people is very expensive and 4095 sometimes the difference between unemployment and keeping them employed is minimal… marginal and I think that is the lesson that comes out of the Minister’s statement he made today.

I got on my feet last year and said I would support the Minister unreservedly and said then, flagged up, that we would, more than likely, be back this year for a similar amount. I make that prediction again, quite clearly to you today. I think whoever is the Minister there, will be back 4100 next year for another figure, hopefully lower, but it will have to be paid and we have no option on the matter, as far as I am concerned. And as long as I am here, I will support – putting money to Health is the number one priority.

The President: Mr Callister, Hon. Member. 4105 Mr Callister: I will stick entirely to the motion, Mr President – apart from one brief statement.

(Several Members: Oh!) (Laughter) We are all going to support this – we know we are going to support this. I will be very brief. I

am a bit surprised – this refers back to something that Mr Waft said – that the increased cost of 4110 drugs is not in here. It usually is, when these motions come, so I wonder if that situation is stabilised, as far as the cost is concerned in Tynwald.

The bit that may not directly relate to the motion is that there is a former Health Minister within this Court who, as far as I can recall, in the days I was reporting, did not come to Tynwald as Health Minister for supplementary votes and that person is sitting here on Legislative Council, 4115 Mrs Christian. She may or may not be able to confirm that.

We were all shocked, I think, when the former Minister, who is now Speaker, came with £2 million; here we are with £8½ million – quite amazing, really, that we can do it. We will support it


_________________________________________________________________ 971 T127

and I fully support it, but I do have two questions for the Minister. First of all, how many people – and this is back to the swine flu – on the Isle of Man contracted H1N1 virus? Secondly, the next 4120 time we all jump like startled rabbits for a health scare, will he arrange to examine the motives and the directorships of the companies that stand to make huge financial benefits from the sale of intervention products? (Mr Downie: Hear, hear.)

Thank you, Mr President. 4125 The President: Mr Malarkey. Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. I had absolutely no intention of speaking today on this motion. I am rising to my feet because

of the comments of Mr Karran. 4130 For ages I have been taking the political slap on the teeth from the Liberal Vannin Party with

regard to my Departments, and I know it is the policy of Liberal Vannin that, at every opportunity Mr Karran has, he has to belittle anything I do in my Departments because it would not look good for the next Election if I achieved something. So for him to stand on his feet, yet again having a go at the DAT unit within my division, within the whole Drug and Alcohol Strategy, I am going to 4135 defend that today.

If he would like to get his cheque book out and get the £750,000 a year it is going to cost to run the unit, I will happily accept it off him for this year if he can find me the money for the next few years. He constantly brings that to the table, Mr President.

4140 Mr Karran: Point of order, Eaghtyrane. I have been on about Social Services being changed before he even knew the inside of this

building. (Laughter) And the other thing is it is nothing to do with him; it is to do with the fact you cannot do it, anyway. Come clean about it!

4145 The President: Mr Karran! Mr Malarkey has the floor. (Interjection by Mr Karran) Mr Malarkey: Mr President, once again, this is the debate about an overspend within the

Department; nothing to do with the DAT unit, but Mr Karran managed to bring it into the conversation this afternoon. So I think I have a right to also bring it into the conversation that, at 4150 the moment, it would cost £750,000, and I do not believe that that would be the right way to spend money on the DAT unit and the Drug and Alcohol Strategy.

Mr Karran: Wouldn’t get building byelaws! 4155 Mr Malarkey: Mr President, I am not going to be dragged into a conversation with Mr

Karran. He constantly tries to belittle virtually everything that I try to do within the Department and the Drug and Alcohol Strategy. Up until now, I have turned the other cheek, but today I do not feel like doing that.

As far as the £8½ million we are here today for, I have spoken with members of my Division 4160 on where we go forward from here. We must remember that, although we did not get any extra money in the Budget, and we did not lose an awful lot, we still have to absorb that £3 million that was given as a pay rise last year. We still have not got that money. So we still, within our budgets, have to find that in the coming year. I think it should be put out to the public that, yes, Health is doing okay at the moment, we are getting there. Occasionally we do need a little bit of help from 4165 this Court, and today is one of those occasions. I certainly know from my divisions, and through everything else that is going on in Health, we are working very hard behind the scenes, to give the people of the Isle of Man value for money. We have a budget of over £6,000 for every man, woman and child in the Isle of Man, to spend on health, social services and social security. It is a very, very big commitment. It is a very tall order. 4170

So I would ask you all to support it today. I think it is a one-off payment. We are aware of what challenges we face in the coming year within the Department, and I would like to do it there, Mr President.

The President: Mrs Christian, Hon. Member of Council. 4175 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. First of all, if I could just comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member, Mr Callister:

certainly, we did not come for a supplementary vote every year, but I have to confess that we did


_________________________________________________________________ 972 T127

come for some supplementary votes. In particular, I remember coming for a supplementary vote in 4180 respect of looked-after children, which was part way through the year when we recognised we were not going to cope within the year’s budget.

I do have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister, but I do think, a year ago, when we were voting supplementary votes at that stage, we were saying, ‘Is next year’s budget going to be realistic in terms of the pay rises?’ I think Mr Speaker has alluded to this already, and I think the 4185 answer is no, it was not realistic in terms of the commitments that were known and recognised at that time.

I do think there are things which, to us, as lay people, jump off the page and we say, ‘Why are we doing that all the time?’ In particular, the Hon. Member for Peel has indicated that people go for elective treatments and then they are called back two or three times to see a consultant for a 4190 couple of minutes.

He says, ‘How are you?’ ‘I am fine.’ ‘Okay, back you go to the Isle of Man.’ I really do not know how we tackle these particular issues, because the professionals insist on 4195

the continuing care of their patients. I am sure the Department may be looking at it, but I wonder whether we send people away for elective treatments now which were formerly dealt with in the Isle of Man, (A Member: Hear, hear.) and whether there are changing standards there and whether there is anything we can do to adjust that. It is an extraordinarily difficult matter dealing with a customer-led budget, a demand-led budget, and I think that the Department will get the support it 4200 is seeking today.

Hopefully, the National Insurance receipts increasing in this year’s Budget will do a little to help the position, but I would not be surprised if we do not have a similar situation arising on future occasions.

4205 The President: Now, Mr Teare to reply, and I think every Member has spoken in favour, sir. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President, and I take that very subtle hint, sir. (Laughter) I would like to thank my seconder, Mr Crowe. Yes, we do have increased activity, with better

productivity. One of the issues that has come up – and I will not go through every person’s 4210 contribution, sir – is the cost of drugs. The drugs bill is currently in the region of £20 million a year and, during the current year, we did agree to prescribe another type of drug and that one drug alone is going to increase our drug cost by approximately £600,000 a year. The difficulty is that when a new drug comes in, we do not get a drug of a comparable cost dropping off at the other end of the system. It does not replace a drug of a similar cost. New drugs which tend to come in 4215 tend to be branded drugs, as opposed to generic drugs, and they do attract a premium price.

Going back to one of the comments raised about GPs prescribing, as has been mentioned by my hon. friend, Mr Crowe, the Member of Legislative Council, the GPs and consultants on the Island have a good record of prescribing generic drugs. I have to say, though, every now and again, when a patient is not prescribed the drug that they want – the brand drug that they want, that 4220 they have researched on the internet – then I do get representations from Members of this Hon. Court saying, why can it not be done? We will prescribe brand-name drugs, but only as a last resort, after everything else has been tried out, so I would ask for Hon. Members’ support.

That also extends to patient escorts, as well, for patients who are referred to the UK for elective treatment. The Commission makes the decision as to whether that patient warrants an escort or 4225 not. We have actually highlighted to the clinicians the terms upon which that decision is based, and as a result of them adhering more rigorously to the rules now, there are more people being declined an escort. So we are getting more requests to reconsider that. I would like to think we are all a team here, because we are all working, in effect, to deliver the best for our constituents, the best for the people of the Isle of Man. When I am asked to step outside the guidelines, it does put 4230 the clinicians in a very difficult position. We do need to stick together.

A comment was made by Mr Cannan and also by Mr Karran about the perceived level of bureaucracy, especially at Noble’s Hospital. We are currently reviewing the management structure to see whether that is effective, but one has to remember, as well, that we do need a certain level of administrators to support the consultants and to manage their clinics for them so the patients are 4235 called, they are there, they are ready for consultations when those consultations are due. Also, in the current very litigious environment, we do have to keep an audit trail, because people are, quite rightly, prepared to challenge us if something does not work out as expected, and we need to have an audit trail to demonstrate exactly why we did a procedure or we did not do a procedure, and I am afraid that that does come at a cost. 4240


_________________________________________________________________ 973 T127

There was comment made about the salary increases: couldn’t we have seen that, it was on the radar screen, and why did we accept a budget at the beginning of the year which was patently wrong? The Treasury quite rightly said to us, ‘We would like you to try. This is a challenge. You see what you can do.’ We tried, but unfortunately we were not able to deliver it.

Mr Speaker was talking about the demand. All our services are demand led; we cannot control 4245 the demand. As I said in the Budget debate yesterday, we will have to have a look now at what we do – is it essential, or is it nice to do?

A further role which we are considering is universal benefits, can that be sustained on the present basis in the current environment? Should we be targeting those who are in very difficult circumstances, or in the most difficult circumstances? 4250

I also recognise there have been comments made about the Drug and Alcohol Unit. Mr Waft was quite correct, it is open during the week but we were trying to get it open 24/7. I would like to pay a big compliment, a big thanks, to the Hon. Member for South Douglas, Mr Malarkey. He is working hard and he is delivering results. We have joined-up action between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Home Affairs for addressing what is a very 4255 serious problem in the Island, and I would like to thank him for that. The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, has mentioned can we adopt a different approach to the Drug and Alcohol Unit, and I know that Mr Malarkey, with his colleagues in Social Services, are trying to review that. We are looking at it to see what else we can do and, to use one of Mr Karran’s expressions, thinking outside the box. 4260

Mr Crookall asked, in terms of UK referrals, how many are they and we will certainly come back on that to give Hon. Members the overall flavour of the level of activity, but I am afraid it all comes down to a demand that we cannot control and also to a cost, in terms of health, that is very difficult to control, because when a patient is sent for treatment, we cannot say that they are going to have the very basic treatment. The clinicians decide the treatment that is appropriate for the 4265 patient.

Mr Callister, the Hon. Member of Council, raised the subject of H1N1 and obviously something he has picked up in the press, as I did about whether there was, I think, the summary would be… whether there was a scare created by the drug companies. I have to say that our Director of Public Health, Dr Kishore, acted very responsibly in this way. He did not place an 4270 order, or he did not recommend to the Department that we ordered sufficient vaccine and also tamiflu for every resident of the Island. We scaled back the order. That was a risk; it could have gone the other way. We cannot give you figures as to how many people contracted H1N1 because, in the later stages of the outbreak, Hon. Members will recollect that the Department stopped testing. We advised people to stay at home and to take paracetamol so, because of that, we were 4275 not able to say with any degree of clarity exactly how many people contracted the virus, but it was certainly, in terms of the number per head of population, considerably less than the UK.

So, with that, Mr President, and your gentle prompting, sir, I would like to move the motion standing in my name.

4280 The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Mr President, if I may ask the Minister, I did ask for some specific answers to

do with the budgets for elective surgery for three financial years. If he does not have the information, would he be good enough to circulate it to Members of the Court? 4285

The President: Mr Teare. The Minister: I beg your pardon, sir. I am sorry. In my endeavour to keep moving, I owe you

an apology. The previous estimate, yes, was £5.3 million, but that did not include the cost of 4290 patient travel… or patient transport. What we have done is we have now reset the budget to more accurately reflect the total cost. The cost going forward, the £10.439 million, that does include part of the effects of the ending of the Reciprocal Health Agreement, or what we feel. To actually gauge the true extent of the cost of the RHA is very difficult.

4295 The President: With that explanation, Hon. Members, the motion that I put to the Court is that

printed at Item 6 on your Order Paper, Hon. Members. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.


_________________________________________________________________ 974 T127

Battery Pier Firewater Scheme Expenditure approved

7. The Minister for Transport to move:

That Tynwald approves the Department of Transport incurring expenditure not exceeding £2,013,000 in respect of the Battery Pier Firewater Scheme 4300 [Ref: Item no 15 under the heading ‘Transport’ on page 10 of the Isle of Man Budget 2009-10 and as detailed in the Estimates of Capital Payments 2009-10 to 2013-14 on pages 58 and 59 of the Isle of Man Budget 2009-10. Also Ref. Item No 11 under the heading ‘Transport’ in the Isle of Man Budget 2010-11 and as detailed in the Estimates of Capital Payments 2010-11 to 2014-15 in the Isle of Man Budget 2010-11] 4305 The President: We go on to Item 7 and I call on the Minister for Transport to move, please. The Minister for Transport (Mr Anderson): Thank you, Mr President. The existing fire fighting system at the Battery Pier, Douglas, does not meet current standards 4310

for a number of reasons. The fire main supplying the water to the depots of Manx Petroleums and Manx Gas, and also the tanker jetty, is not a ringmain, and consequently there is little or no built-in ‘redundancy’ to prevent a failure of the whole system in the event of a failure of a single element. The pumping equipment and related control system is antiquated. Whilst it is still fully operational, maintenance is becoming increasingly problematic due to the difficulty of sourcing 4315 spare parts. The quantity of water required during an incident has increased significantly, as the two depots and the tanker jetty must now be treated as one site, whereas previously they could be considered as three separate operational locations.

Previously, the pump capacity could be based upon the single largest requirement; now it must be based on the sum of the capacities required for all three sites. Finally, the standards in respect 4320 of the siting of pump houses and equipment has changed significantly since the explosion and fire at the Buncefield oil depot in the UK in 2006, in which the initial explosion demolished the pump house. The new standards developed since 2006 have made the existing pump house site inadequate for the new pump house.

The Department of Transport commissioned Resource Protection International (RPI) to review 4325 the current installation and to recommend what would be necessary to bring the existing system up to the standards currently required for such an installation. RPI recommended that the pumping equipment would require replacement on a new site and that redundancy would need to be built into the system, in terms of both the pumping provision and delivery main. Designs were developed, leading to a system comprising a containerised pump house to be located in the 4330 Department of Transport’s Battery Pier yard, with new connections to an enhanced fire main and new sea suctions to be located at the root of the Battery Pier, adjacent to the old ferry steps. The pump house has been located to be outside the influence of any credible hazard scenario involving the oil and gas storage tanks and will provide an appropriate standard of noise insulation.

This Scheme has been worked up over the past four years with the active participation of the 4335 Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service, Manx Gas, Manx Petroleums and the Health and Safety Inspectorate, which annually licenses the petroleum storage facility. The Scheme takes account of the changes needed by Manx Gas for LPG storage, given the proposed expansion of the natural gas network.

The contract will be undertaken by the Department of Transport Works Division. A major 4340 element of the Scheme will be the provision of a containerised pump house, which will be procured by the Works Division from Hydrodiesel Ltd. The value of this pump house will be €1,164,763 and a request for a revised procurement procedure has been approved by Treasury. In dealing with this payment in euros, Treasury’s recently issued guidelines will be followed by the Department. 4345

The Department of Transport Harbours Division has obtained Treasury concurrence to the total cost of the Scheme not exceeding the sum of £2,163,000. A motion to incur expenditure not exceeding £2,013,000 is therefore being sought from Tynwald, the difference being £150,000 for previous contract design fees that have received previous Tynwald approval. I therefore recommend that Tynwald gives its approval to this important proposed improvement works to the 4350 Battery Pier fire fighting system.

Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Mr Callister, Hon. Member of Council.


_________________________________________________________________ 975 T127

Mr Callister: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Mr President. 4355 The President: Mr Cregeen. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I wonder if the Transport Minister can inform me a bit more regarding DoT Works, because 4360

we were told only a short time ago that if we did not approve the Richmond Hill scheme, DoT Works Division would not have anything to do; now we are being told we have got another million pound scheme here for DoT Works. So either they had something to do or they did not. They cannot be… I cannot understand how he can say they would not have had anything to do if we had not approved Richmond Hill. He may say that it is a different type of staff, but surely there 4365 are construction staff who will be doing the pavements and the barns up on Richmond Hill, which they could have utilised, anyway.

The other issue is on the risk assessment. He did mention regarding the natural gas pipeline, but have we taken into account that this is going to cover the gas and yet, in a number of years, you may not have the gas there and we will be another large project for just the oil storage over 4370 there?

When is the work due to commence, and when did he go out to tender for these pumps? I am sure there is a very good chance that you may get a keener price now than I think the presentation was over six months ago – if he could just give a bit more advice on that, please, sir.

4375 The President: Mr Braidwood, Hon. Member. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. Mr President, I am sure the Minister for Transport will say that the Works Division has a very

diverse workforce, who can do different things. They can do Richmond Hill and they can build the 4380 pump house at the same time. (A Member: Multi-task!)

I am supportive of this motion. The Minister has already mentioned this comes from when the Buncefield oil depot exploded and, in actual fact, I was in the DoT at that time and it was brought to my attention that the facilities that we had were inadequate if we had a similar problem down at the Battery Pier with the Manx Petroleums and the gas. 4385

This will, as the Minister has already said, enable… the pumps will enable tremendous additional capacity, water capacity, sea water capacity, which will be used because the pumps are sea water pumps. If there is any problem down at the Battery Pier, at least we are now building in a contingency for any problems which could arise, and hopefully will not arise, but at least we will be looking to the future that any problem which may come and we look after the safety of our 4390 people.

The President: Mr Waft, Hon. Member. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. 4395 Before anybody says, ‘Oh, this sort of thing never happens here,’ my great, great grandfather

was blown up at the gasworks. A tank blew up and three people were killed in 1889 and there is a plaque on the wall in memory of those men that died there. So we must never be complacent when we are responsible for these sort of areas. I would certainly endorse this.

Thank you, Mr President. 4400 The President: Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Thank you. I wonder if the Minister will indicate whether this sterling value reflects the euro purchase at 4405

current exchange rates and what his strategy is going to be in relation to the purchase of euros? The President: Mr Downie. Mr Downie: I am largely in favour of the scheme, Mr President. 4410 I think having these pumps containerised, which is a very modern method, they can be moved

quite quickly for maintenance purposes and so on. One can be lifted and another one can be put into its place. It is really the way to go, but I would just like to ask the Minister two questions really. If the gas pipeline is to be progressed, obviously the operation of the liquefied petroleum


_________________________________________________________________ 976 T127

gas down at the breakwater will be redundant. I just want to confirm that and whether there has 4415 been any dialogue with the gas company and himself about the redundancy?

The other thing is, we use this word in here, ‘we’: ‘we must, we must’. My understanding is that Manx Gas and Manx Petroleums are tenants of the Department of Transport. Surely we are doing this on behalf of our tenants, and I would just like the Minister to clarify if any of this cost that the Government is incurring, will be renegotiated into some sort of a lease and there might be 4420 some sort of a recharging measure? I understand another oil company in the west of the Island has carried out some similar arrangements and updated their equipment at no cost at all to Government so, bearing in mind the different situation, I think they own their land and they own their own operation. Just to clarify that, because people will ask, why are we doing this, what is the reason behind it and it is not indicated in the papers and it is just something I think we should put down 4425 on the record.

The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: The previous speaker is quite right: people will ask the reason and the need for 4430

this. We have been told in no uncertain terms what the financial situation is, in terms of our revenue budgets and capital schemes which have an impact on revenue budgets.

The design fees for this particular capital scheme had been previously agreed – they were agreed, I think, towards the end of last year – at £150,000. If they had not been agreed, would there have been an option appraisal? Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the option of doing 4435 nothing is. By the very title of the Scheme – ‘Battery Pier Firewater Scheme’ – it is to do with protection of human life, by implication. I presume doing nothing was not an option, but I need to know, was it considered in those terms? All capital schemes are surely up for reappraisal at the present time.

Again, just for the record, could I ask what the revenue implications are for this Scheme? The 4440 Pink Book would have this Scheme, which sits in this financial year, along with another Scheme – the only other Scheme in Harbours Division, which is Port St Mary Marina, which, of course, sits in the ‘Further payment’ column, of £1 million – together, those two Schemes are just over £3 million – a £259,000 revenue cost. So with the pressure that is on revenues, presumably, this £2 million Scheme comes out at something like £180,000 revenue, overall. Can the Minister confirm 4445 that?

Basically, it is incumbent on us, whatever the capital scheme and whatever the Health and Safety rationale for a scheme, that we do ask these questions in the present financial climate.

The President: Minister to reply. 4450 Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President, and I thank Members for their general support. In relation to the issues raised, Mr Cregeen, the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, asked if

the DoT are not fully occupied… or will be on Richmond Hill, obviously. We have got many different areas of speciality within the Department and when we are talking about Richmond Hill 4455 we are talking about specific workgroups. The DoT, if it gets Tynwald approval, will be tasked with carrying out this. However, I should point out that a large proportion of the money for this Scheme is actually to do with expensive equipment – which is very specialised equipment. However, the DoT works team will be primarily driving this forward and putting the ring main and things like that into the system. 4460

He also makes reference to… If I could read my writing, I could tell what it was. (A Member: LPG?) Yes, LPG, as did somebody else. We do know in the future, hopefully, we will be moving towards natural gas. However, my understanding is that there will always be a need for LPG on the Island, so there will always be gas required on that site, maybe in smaller proportions than at present. We cannot guess when that change might take place, so there is always that dangerous 4465 mixture on the site, of petroleum and gas, and just because we say, maybe in three years’ time, something might change, we have a responsibility, as landowners in that area, to make sure that we comply with the present Health and Safety Inspectorate’s recommendations. Therefore, we would be holding ourselves very open to litigation if we did not go down the route of actually putting in place what had been professionally recommended, in the light of what happened at 4470 Buncefield in 2006.

I would like to thank the Hon. Member for East Douglas, the former Minister, Mr Braidwood, for giving us some background information of when he was in the Department and how it was actually acknowledged that we had an infrastructure that had been there for more than a quarter of a century and it was coming to the end of its useful life, anyway. Therefore we had to take into 4475


_________________________________________________________________ 977 T127

account what had happened at Buncefield, the recommendations from Buncefield and the likelihood that our operation would not be… as it has to be annually licensed to operate.

I would like to thank Mr Waft for his comments. We must not be complacent as far as Health and Safety is concerned. I think we are more conscious of Health and Safety now but we have a few elements down there, highly hazardous components on one site, and quite honestly, this 4480 resilience that has been built into this system will give the Department comfort, those people employed there comfort, and the residents of the area comfort as well.

Moving on to the Hon. Member of Council, Mrs Christian, to do with looking at procedures to do with purchasing of euros, in this area now, we rely very heavily on professional guidance that has been laid down – that being new procedures brought forward by Treasury. We will be 4485 following those procedures and, as far as my understanding is, if we proceed on the timescale at the moment, we should be within the allocated budget for that.

The Hon. Member of Council, Mr Downie, wanted to know about our responsibilities. These are other areas in the Island, and there is a different scenario on the Battery Pier, because we are the landowners and we get substantial amount of rent from them both – Manx Gas, Manx 4490 Petroleums – who are our tenants; but we are responsible to take the firefighting material to the edge of their sites. That is our responsibility and, quite honestly, if we have a situation down there, that these days is not up to the internationally recognised standards…

In Peel, Total own their own site, so they have their own responsibility. I understand they have recently upgraded their sites to the same sort of standards. What we will have on the Battery Pier 4495 site is something that has a high element of resilience. At the moment, it does not, and therefore we are not really comparing apples with apples. We can compare what we have got and what Peel has got, because we have a responsibility. We do get a commercial rent that is reflective of the investment that we have made in the past and will be making in the future down there.

In relation to Mr Speaker and his question about ongoing liabilities, as far as loan charges are 4500 concerned, Mr Speaker will be aware that loan charges have been reduced to zero in the present Budget, and so we will not have – my understanding is – any liability there in the near future.

In conclusion, Mr President, this Scheme has been worked up over several years. It has been worked up by professionals from that specialised area, and as I said yesterday, in the Budget speech, we only bring forward capital schemes which are essential for improving the infrastructure 4505 of our Island. I believe this is one of those high priorities that we cannot ignore.

Therefore, Mr President, I beg to move. The President: Now, Hon. Members, the motion that I put to the Court is that printed at Item

7 on your Order Paper: that Tynwald approves the Department of Transport incurring expenditure 4510 not exceeding £2,013,000 in respect of the Battery Pier Firewater Scheme. Hon. Member, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Procedural The President: Hon. Members, I think that is an appropriate time at which we took our break;

but before we all rush off, as a matter of procedure, Hon. Members, can I tell you that I propose, when we return, that we will be straight on to Item 8. 4515

Hon. Members, depending on how that turns out, depending on your voting on Item 8, it is likely that I will go straight on to Item 13, which is in reference to the Transfer of Functions (New Departments) Order.

I have similarly had a request, Hon. Members, from the Chief Minister: should we get that far, having accepted Item 8 and moved on, that there would be a new Order coming, relative to the 4520 proposed changes which have been made since this Order Paper was produced. So as a matter of procedure, Hon. Members, I am alerting you to the fact that, depending on how you vote on Item 8, I am likely to go to Item 13, and then a subsequent Order flowing from that.

Hon. Members, we will resume our deliberations on Item 8 at 5.30. Thank you.

The Court adjourned at 5.00 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 5.30 p.m.


_________________________________________________________________ 978 T127

Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee Independent Review of the Scope and Structure of Government

Report and recommendation – Debate commenced

8. The Chief Minister to move: That Tynwald notes the conclusions of the Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee in 4525 Part 2 of this Report on the Independent Review of the Scope and Structure of Government [GD No 07/10] and that the recommendation as set out in paragraph 3.4.1 of Part 3 of this Report be approved. The President: Hon. Members, we have reached Item 8 on the Order Paper and I call upon the 4530

Chief Minister to move, please. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Thank you, Mr President. As Hon. Members are aware, an independent review team appointed in 2005 by the last

administration reported to the Council of Ministers with a Report, which was published in 4535 September 2006. The then Council of Ministers determined to publish the Report, but not consider or progress any of the findings of that Report or, in fact, to put the Report before Tynwald.

However, it was clear that there was some interest, both publicly and politically, regarding the Report’s recommendations, of which there were 48 which related to the scope of Government services, and also in relation to the proposed new structure of the Government, identified by the 4540 independent review team. This was one of the issues which was of interest at the 2006 General Election, and certainly many of the successful candidates, who were elected to the House of Keys in 2006 continue to show an interest in seeing the Report’s findings being considered and some progress being made in relation to the content of that Report.

When I agreed to allow my name to be put forward for nomination as Chief Minister in 4545 December 2006, one of the issues I set out in my written statement to the Hon. Court for my nomination as Chief Minister was that I would consider and report on the independent review team’s Report. I also made it very clear in my statement, as I had publicly before the 2006 General Election, that I did not support the privatisation or corporatisation of the public utilities and facilities, as proposed in the review team’s Report, and that is still the case today. 4550

The review Report was forwarded in 2007 to the Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee for their consideration of the Report and its findings. The Report is basically two reports in one. It deals, first, with the scope of Government, which is the first part of the Report. The Governance Committee considered the 48 recommendations which were set out in the independent review team’s Report and the Committee’s comments on each of the review team’s Report 4555 recommendations and they are included in the Council of Ministers’ Report, which is now before Tynwald.

As part of the Governance Committee’s considerations, the Committee also considered the review team’s proposals for restructuring Government, as set out in their Report, and whether there was a need to restructure Government Departments at all. The Committee considered 4560 whether any restructuring should be as proposed by the review team or a different structure. After some initial considerations, the Committee referred the matter to me for my detailed consideration and for me to report back to that Committee with my thoughts.

As I have often mentioned to Hon. Members in answer to Questions in Tynwald Court and in another place, I had hoped to undertake the exercise within a reasonably short timescale. However, 4565 due to other more pressing issues, which had been given greater priority, which affected our Island, in fact it took longer for me to revert back to the Committee than I had anticipated. I subsequently reported back to the Governance Committee in January 2010, with the outline of a proposed new structure for Government, including the relationship of the Statutory Boards and Authorities etc, which built on the work done by the review team, and which was deemed to be 4570 more in line with meeting today’s needs and, importantly, looking forward to the future, to take us forward.

It is important to state, and I wish to make it clear at this point, that the proposals to restructure Government, as outlined in the Council of Ministers’ Report, do not adversely impact on the provisions or delivery of public services. In fact, the changes should improve on the present 4575 situation. The changes are about the internal operation of Government, and how it is structurally put together to deliver its services. The changes to the structure, as proposed, do not affect or change the level of public services we provide. What it will do is drive change and greater efficiencies within the Government, by providing a more co-ordinated and effective structure. It


_________________________________________________________________ 979 T127

will also, and very importantly, provide a structure which is more focused on economic 4580 development, and also social care – the care of our community, which is in line with our Strategic Government Plan 2007-11. It focuses Government on the need to secure economic development, by the creation of an Economic Development Department, which brings together the many varied economic strands of Government into, and under the control of, one Department. That, I believe, is fundamental to us going forward in the future. 4585

Council believes, as well, that this is critical, as it enables the Island to focus very much, and effectively focus, and maximise our limited resources to enable us to be more competitive in today’s very competitive world markets. We believe that if we do not move forward in this way, we will be left behind. In fact, we already see, in certain areas, where we are losing some of the battles, because of actions being taken by other economies, by other countries similar to ourselves. 4590

Mr President, as we all know, the Island is already under pressure regarding our finances, as was demonstrated in yesterday’s Budget, and whilst we have taken measures to safeguard services to ensure we can continue to finance the Island’s needs, as was said yesterday by the Treasury Minister, this Budget is only a first holding step. It is therefore paramount, if we are to remain successful and to make up the considerable shortfall in our incomes, that we need to continue to 4595 provide good services for the people of the Isle of Man, that we look not only to find new areas of investment, but we maximise our efforts in those areas and that we are more effective, maybe, than we are today by co-ordination of what we do. It is also vital, if we are to remain and continue to provide a good quality of life for people, that we actually continue to be successful.

Mr President, returning to the process in developing the changes. The proposals for a new 4600 structure were considered by the Governance Committee who, in turn, reported to the Council of Ministers. The Committee’s report was then carefully considered at length by the Council of Ministers and, after a number of changes, Council agreed to the report which is before you today.

Mr President, as I outlined in my detailed presentation to Hon. Members on Thursday, 11th February, the new structure abolishes six existing Departments and creates seven new 4605 Departments, one of course being the Department of Education and Children, with the retention of two existing Departments. The new departmental structure continues to consist of nine Government Departments.

At this stage I would confirm, as Members were advised on Monday 15th, that the Council of Ministers has given further consideration to the concerns expressed by the agricultural industry in 4610 relation to some of the concerns that have been expressed to myself and, of course, to other Members, about the proposed change, as outlined in the report. In fact, Mr President, at a meeting I attended on 1st February, which had been arranged in December, which coincided with the release of this report, I attended a meeting on Monday, 1st February with the southern farmers, who were accompanied by some of their colleagues from the northern branch. At that meeting it 4615 was quite clear that there was concern about the change, in fact as to how it impacted on the agricultural industry. At that meeting, I gave an undertaking that I would take the matter back to the Council of Ministers and that I would review what we had proposed, with a view to seeing whether or not we should make any change.

As a consequence of that further consideration, the Council of Ministers agreed to join all the 4620 functions of the present Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry into a proposed new department, a Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture. So therefore, Mr President, we put together the present Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry responsibilities and the new responsibilities outlined for the Department of Environment to create that new Department. With Tynwald support, if this motion today is successful, it is my intention to move an Order, via 4625 a Supplementary Order Paper today, to give effect to the change of name of the new Department to carry out the commitment that we have now given to the industry.

Mr President, the new Department structure for Government, as now proposed, along with their main functions, as identified in the Report… and I have to make it clear, that is not prescriptive. That is generalising the main functions that Departments have. Clearly, it is important 4630 to recognise that Departments do lots of other functions and the lists would be endless if we did that. The new Departments are as follows.

It is proposed that a Department of Community, Culture and Leisure, whose main functions would be: Manx culture – the first time that we will have a Department that has responsibility for the culture of the Isle of Man; leisure, which includes the Villa Marina complex, the Arcade, the 4635 Gaiety Theatre, the National Sports Centre – all things that are important to us – the arts, the bus services, the trains and trams and, of course, recreational clubs. It is proposed that this Department will also be the sponsoring Department for the following bodies: the Office of Fair Trading, linking back to the need to look after our community; Manx National Heritage and the Manx Heritage Foundation; the Arts Council; the Sports Council and the swimming pool authorities, all 4640


_________________________________________________________________ 980 T127

of which will, of course, retain their statutory independence but will have now a Department they are clearly linked to if they need to get a message through to executive Government. They will be able to work with that Department, and that is the same throughout the Report where we have links to sponsoring Departments.

We then propose a Department of Economic Development. Critically, this is important in 4645 terms of going forward in the future. It will look to promote and develop economic development, manufacturing, tourism, construction, retail, Isle of Man Finance, the Aircraft Register, the Shipping Register, space, commerce, e-business, e-gaming, minerals, Work Permits, training, careers services, Isle of Man Film, ISD, printing services, the Companies Registry. All of these are spread over a number of different Departments, which makes it very difficult, on occasions, to co-4650 ordinate policy and to make sure that we have a clear strategy on how we develop our economy, all under one Department, which we believe is very important. It will also mean that that Department will be the sponsoring Department for the Post Office, again a commercially successful body of Government, in terms that it is a Statutory Board – and I want to make it clear at this stage that the Isle of Man Post Office has never received, as far as I can recall, a subvention 4655 from the Isle of Man Government. In fact, the Post Office has always made a profit and has always paid some of its profits over to Government, to assist Government in what it does, as was demonstrated again yesterday, through the Budget. So we have a very successful Post Office, commercially orientated which, again, we want to have linked to that Department, for all the benefits that I think are obvious. 4660

We then have a Department of Education and Children. We have already announced our intention, whatever happens, that there will be a Department of Education and Children. We have a Children’s Bill that is out for consultation at the moment, and this is something that we again need to move forward on. The Department of Education basically will stay as it is, except it will have incorporated into it, if the legislation is successful, also extra responsibilities relating to 4665 children. It already is involved in schools, nurseries, student awards, College of Further Education, Business School, University Centre, safeguarding children – which is a shared responsibility with other Departments – the Youth Service and rural libraries.

There will then be the new Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture. I see no point… Whilst I could go over the issue of what is in the Report, in terms that, within the Report, 4670 of course, we have the Department of Environment, and that is set out for Members to see, I think it is worth, at this stage, Mr President, just to say that if Tynwald approves the Report, and if the Orders and the Supplementary Order Paper are approved, which I hope are, we will then have what will become the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture. That will mean that Department has responsibility for agriculture, animal health, climate change, coastline protection, 4675 environmental improvements, environmental protection, environmental public health, fisheries, food safety, forestry, Government analyst, protection of the countryside, waste management, and wildlife and conservation – all being brought together under one Department, so we can meet the concerns that were expressed to us, recently, about the structure that we have actually shown within the Report. 4680

If, of course, Tynwald approves the Report and the Orders that are before us, then, if we are to meet that, it will be very important they also approve the Supplementary Order Paper which will actually create the new Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture because we need to amend the Order that has already been made. I hope Hon. Members will be able to support that.

Then the Department of Health: Mr President, it took a lot of time to persuade me – I suppose, 4685 a nice way to put it – that we should split the Department of Health and Social Security into two components. I suppose part of that was covered because I was the first Minister for Health and Social Security, when the departmental system came in in 1986. Quite clearly, when you have been in the Department, I think you often have quite a job to pull yourself away from that, when there are changes being proposed. But I am satisfied that, in fact, it is the right thing to do. The 4690 Department of Health and Social Security, of which I was Minister, is nothing like the Department of Health and Social Security we have today. The reason for that is quite straightforward.

When I became Minister, we had no Social Services. During my time as Minister we set up Social Services, but it was very much in its infancy. Now, as society is changing and as the way we deal with people who need healthcare is changing, Social Services are becoming of far greater 4695 importance to the Island and how we deal with the people we are there to care for. I will come back to Social Services in a minute… or social care. So that is why it is proposed that we split the Department into two and we revert to a Department of Health. That would be a Department which is responsible for National Health Services, hospital services, public health, preventative health, pathology, safeguarding children – which is again a shared responsibility with Education – and 4700 nurse education and training.


_________________________________________________________________ 981 T127

Of course, one of the big things in there, as we have heard from the debate that was on just before, Mr President, is in fact, the hospital service and the impact that has on our resources and of course it is a very large area of Government responsibility, which I believe will benefit from a Department of Health being created and that is supported by the Ministers. 4705

The Department of Home Affairs will remain as it is, with Police services, it will have a safeguarding children shared responsibility with Education and Health, and fire and rescue, so there is no change in that Department at all. What will happen there, as it is now, is a sponsoring Department for the Communications Commission.

The next big change is the Department of Infrastructure, which will have airports, harbours, 4710 highways, works, quarries, planning and building control, Government property estates and architects, Meat Plant and animal waste. I think it is important to bring together the Government property estates and architects into one. We know, at the moment, the Department of Transport provides one arm of what goes on and the Department of Local Government and the Environment provides the other side of what goes on, in terms of Government property estates we were talking 4715 about. I think to bring that together, which in itself should become more efficient in providing employment within the Department of Infrastructure and securing how we do it and, hopefully, create more efficiencies, will be something that I believe will benefit the Department. The Department will also have the Meat Plant and animal waste.

Again, in co-ordinating how we deal with other bodies which are outside of the departmental 4720 structure, that Department will also be the sponsoring Department for the Manx Electricity Authority, the new Water and Sewage Authority, Local Government, Planning Authority, Health and Safety Executive Authority and the Road Transport Licensing Committee.

Now, if I can just go back onto two parts, Mr President. The Planning Authority, proposed under this, is that we set up a separate Planning Authority. At the moment we have a Planning 4725 Authority, which is contained within the Department of Local Government and the Environment, but it is statutorily set up separately and I do believe that we should look to move forward to make that change. Again, I just make the point that that, in itself, will be subject to consultation as to the structure of how that would work, but I certainly think that that is an important step forward in actually making it clear that the Department sets out the policies… lays down planning policies, 4730 they are approved by the Department and Tynwald Court, and then the Planning Authority has to carry that out. What will be the common factor is that the officers of the Planning Department will service both the Department and, of course, the Planning Authority, if this move goes ahead.

The Health and Safety Executive Authority: again, there is a conflict within the Department of Local Government and the Environment, where that Authority sits within the Department but, in 4735 fact, the Minister has no say or control over what goes on, except when it comes down to setting out the Regulations and the nearest, I suppose, reflection of that, is a bit like the Police service. When the officers of the Health and Safety Executive are operating, they are operating independent of political control, they are operating under the law, and I think it is important that we provide a separation, a proper separation, that will clearly separate that out. 4740

But also importantly, and again covered in the Report, what we also wish to do is look to introduce legislation to bring in a proper appeals procedure, so that if anyone has a concern about anything that is being inflicted on them by the Health and Safety Executive, by officers, they actually have a facility to appeal against that instruction and, in fact, then an independent body will consider that appeal and consider whether or not the decision that has been made is 4745 appropriate. I think that is an important step forward because my understanding is that, in the United Kingdom, there is an appeals procedure, but we have never brought it into the Isle of Man, and I do think we need to do that. I think, in fairness, we should.

The next big move, of course, is to create a Department of Social Care. Again, this is a very important part of what I believe we should be doing. It will contain Social Services, Social 4750 Security and, as Hon. Members are aware, the collection of Social Security is transferring to Treasury, so we are talking about the policy of Social Security in terms of benefits and what we do, the National Insurance Scheme, safeguarding children, a shared responsibility again, the regulation of care homes, housing, including local authority public-sector housing – which, of course, Government funds 100%, so there is no cost on the ratepayers – but also public sector 4755 housing in its broader sense, sheltered accommodation and bringing those together, so that there is a better synergy of housing policy with the Department that is dealing with the care of the community, who then can also look at the needs of the community, in terms of housing where there is a need for Government to be involved.

I believe this is quite… not ‘quite’… I think this is an important step forward, because clearly, 4760 as we move forward, we can see the pressures and those who have been involved can see the pressures developing within Social Services and the expansion of what they are having to do to


_________________________________________________________________ 982 T127

meet the needs of our community. I believe that that is not just one part of it, it actually is right across the board. I do believe that if we bring together housing, that will also be a big impact on helping that Department to move forward, as well. 4765

The Treasury will be changed, but its main functions will remain, dealing with the Budget, taxation, including Customs and Excise, VAT etc, collection of NI contributions, investments and banking, economic advice and statistical analysis, Capital Projects Unit, Internal Audit, pay and payments, insolvency office, rates, valuations and the Value for Money Committee.

The Treasury will also be the sponsoring Department for the following bodies: the Financial 4770 Supervision Commission, the Insurance and Pensions Authority, the Gambling Supervision Commission, General Registry and the Public Lottery Trust.

Mr President, in formulating the new departmental structure, Council believe that we have identified a number of important factors that need to be dealt with. I believe the outline of what I have shown has clearly, and I hope has, demonstrated that there is a real thought process as to how 4775 and why we have put this together in the way we have. The need for a specific Department to co-ordinate and drive economic growth can never have been greater than it is today. I think we all are conscious that we need to move forward in that way, and certainly I can tell you the business sector look, and have looked, for a number of years to the need to have a Department of Economic Development. Presently, we have a subcommittee of Council set up, trying to fill that gap, which 4780 has only been in being two months or whatever it is, really to try and see if we can bring co-ordination. If we get a Department, it will bring together all those components in the way that we believe we need to.

The Department of Social Care: I quite honestly believe that that is a major step forward which will help us in the future and, of course, trying to make sure that we do not have a Department that 4785 is so big that it becomes difficult for us to politically manage, as well as for the actual Department to be managed in the way that we have seen with the DHSS.

I am satisfied, as is Council, that we now have a real opportunity for restructuring Government to take us forward into the future. Because of all the different pressures on us, now is the time to look at this to see how we take ourselves forward, to modernise ourselves in many areas, to drive 4790 forward change which will help us move forward and, hopefully, create more efficiencies and create a better way of dealing with the public in the way that we do.

A lot of other things are ongoing as well. We have the business change group looking to modernise and make greater use of IT to bring the services that we provide closer to the public, to regionalise one-stop shops, get the services out to where we need to get them. A lot of things are 4795 happening and we need to build on that and I believe that this builds on that.

Mr President, these changes, of course, quite clearly, we all will have some apprehension, because it is stepping into a little bit of the unknown, but so we did in 1986. In fact, that step was far greater, when we went, as I said this morning, from 24 Boards of Tynwald down to nine Departments. Those of us who were in the Court at that time can well remember that apprehension 4800 of this big step that was going to be made. This step is nothing like that, because we now have a departmental system and what we are doing is readjusting that to have better synergy between Departments, better co-ordination and, hopefully, to drive greater efficiencies in the way that we go forward. This change will – if it is approved – require considerable commitment, both at political and officer level. Yes, there will be a challenge to try and make it happen and, yes, it will 4805 put pressures on, but if we get it right and I am confident we will, then the benefits will start to show through in time to the public and that will be something that we should do.

I think it is important for me to make the point, Mr President, I have stepped back to look at this. This is not about me, it is not about any of us, this is about how the Government can provide its services to the people of the Isle of Man – and can we do it in a better way? Can we, by moving 4810 some of the responsibilities round, as we are suggesting, and by creating new Departments, provide a more effective structure of government? I believe the answer is yes.

So, Mr President, I just re-emphasise, this issue is a matter of how Government is structured and how it functions. It is not about reducing services. Those sort of things will be issues that will be considered, whether we have the present system or a new system of government. But I do 4815 believe it will help us move forward. This would be the first step of a change, if approved today, and that change will continue to evolve and develop. Those of us who have been here long enough will see how it has changed as we move forward, anyway. I can recollect at least three changes in the departmental system since it was brought in, where there were quite a number of changes in terms of titles of Departments, transfer of functions, as we moved forward and found a better way 4820 to make them happen.

Clearly, this is a more fundamental change, but I do think it is time, after 25 years, not just to make it for change’s sake, because I do not believe in that, but, after looking at it carefully, there is


_________________________________________________________________ 983 T127

a case for making the change, which I believe will help us move forward and will help us be more competitive, where we need to be. One of the changes will be a greater emphasis on economic 4825 development. We have no doubt about that, but, Mr President, without greater economic development, we cannot afford the services we provide for the people of the Isle of Man. We can only spend the money we earn and when I say ‘we’, I mean the whole Island, not what the Isle of Man Government does. We are using the taxation and the benefits of economic drive to fund what it is we need to fund for the people of the Isle of Man. 4830

So, I believe that the Report before Hon. Members, which is based quite a bit on the original review Report, is something that we should be happy to move forward with. I believe that the time is right and I do believe that if we are going to move, we need to move now. Therefore, I suggest to the Hon. Court… and I hope they will support the motion standing in my name, standing at Item 8, sir. 4835

The President: Mrs Craine, Hon. Member. Mrs Craine: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Mr President. 4840 The President: Mr Speaker. The Speaker: I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The mover is clearly asking us to

approve a version of a report which is now different from the one on the Order Paper at Item 8. Item 8, Mr President, refers to Report GD No. 07/10 and is asking us to approve the 4845

recommendation, as set out in paragraph 3.4.1 of part 3 of that Report. That recommendation, Mr President, calls for the proposals as set out in part 3 of this Report, providing for the creation of nine new Departments of Government, to be approved. But, Mr President, those proposals as set out in the document GD No. 07/10 have changed, as of 15th February – as of Monday this week.

Surely, we cannot be approving, under Item 8, a Government document which sets out 4850 proposals which are now quite different – and the Chief Minister outlined the differences when he read out the structure of the Departments – in that Agriculture is now part of a Department of the Environment –

The President: Right, Mr Speaker, if I may, as I indicated before we broke for our tea break at 4855

five o’clock, Hon. Members, I did tell this Hon. Court that, in fact, there would be – I had agreed there would be – a further Supplementary Order Paper coming forward. It is on your desks, Hon. Members. The motion which is on the Order Paper is exactly as Mr Speaker says. If you go with it, you go with it; if you go against it, you go against it.

I also told you, Hon. Members, before we broke for tea, that if you approve the motion which 4860 the Chief Minister has put before the Court now, I will go straight on to Item 13, and thereafter onto a Supplementary Order Paper. That Supplementary Order Paper is on your desks, and that would create the suggested new Departments which the Chief Minister has suggested he will put to you.

We can do no better than that, Mr Speaker. The reason I do that is because we are all aware 4865 that, since the Order Paper which is before you and the Report has been published, there has been a change.

The Speaker: In that case, Mr President, with the greatest respect, is not what should happen

the withdrawal of this particular motion calling for the approval of document 07/10, the production 4870 of a replacement report, a No. 2 report, which would then be the subject of a motion on the paper, following which we would, if agreed, move to Item 13?

The President: I understand exactly where you are coming from, Mr Speaker. This way

round, it means that we deal with it now. 4875 Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, surely the fact is that if we approve this document, as it states now,

we are approving a document that is not factual. We are supposed to be a legislature. We are supposed to actually not try and make up the law as we go along, and we are supposed to actually 4880 have the stuff that is approved on that basis.

Eaghtyrane, I believe that the Ard-shirveishagh and the Council of Ministers should have had to do the same procedure, as far as this document is concerned, to suspend Standing Orders to bring the document as it is changed, because it is fundamentally changed.


_________________________________________________________________ 984 T127

Eaghtyrane, I just think that we need clarity on this situation and consistency. If it was this 4885 Hon. Member who was trying to get away with this, it would soon be different. The Council of Ministers operate within a parliamentary democracy and I believe that the right procedures should be there. We are approving this document, which is not the precise document that people are wanting.

Eaghtyrane, I think the fact is that if that procedure was to have been taken, then they would 4890 have had to suspend Standing Orders to debate this document, and they know that they would not have won that. I think it is important, Eaghtyrane, that we do keep consistency. You are approving a document that is misrepresenting what it is.

The Chief Minister: No, it is not. 4895 Mr Karran: Absolutely, it is. The President: Hon. Members, I do not know whether the Court will approve or reject the

motion which is before you. 4900 Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Thank you. Mr President, just on a procedural point, I do think that Mr Speaker has a point, in that what we

would be approving under this Order would, in fact, conflict with the Supplementary Order Paper 4905 document, in that we are approving the proposals set out in part 3 at Item 8, which are not the same… Now, if you can live with those differences, that is one thing, but I do think it might be better to receive this document, knowing that the further document contains the changes which have been outlined.

I would propose… Well, Mr President, we are talking about a point of order at this stage, but 4910 that is a mechanism which might be appropriate.

The President: The Chief Minister did indicate that he is proposing this motion, and that the

change will come in the Supplementary Order Paper. Chief Minister. 4915 The Chief Minister: Just to try and be helpful, I think it is pretty straightforward, Mr

President. That is the Report that is before Members and, that Report, they will either approve or not approve. If that Report is approved, we then move on to Item 13, which is the legislative Orders to bring that Report into being. If Members approve that, they then have a choice to move 4920 toward suspending Standing Orders for a further Order which will then bring in the new Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture. They will, of course, have a choice not to do that.

The President: Mr Speaker, are you happy with that? 4925 The Speaker: No, sir, I am not happy. I think it is quite irregular for this Court to be asked to

receive and bring into existence, as an approved document, a publication which is flawed and clearly is going to bear no resemblance to reality under Item 13.

4930 The President: It is not flawed, sir. The Chief Minister has indicated that there would be a

change. As I said, I have no knowledge whether or not at this stage the Court will approve or reject the motion on the Order Paper. That is the problem.

Mr Lowey? Mr Turner. 4935 Mr Turner: Mr President, I think Mrs Christian’s point is very valid that if the motion for the

Report was changed to receive the Report, you could then vote on that and then debate the entire matter on the original Order, followed by the amended Order.

The President: Very straightforward, Hon. Members: if that is the wish of the Court, 4940

somebody could bring that forward to the motion, as an amendment. Mr Callister. Mr Callister: I just want to say, Mr President, if we defer this Report, then we are coming

back to debate the very same thing. 4945


_________________________________________________________________ 985 T127

Mr Lowey: Absolutely. The President: You would be coming back to debate it at some stage. Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. 4950 Mr Cannan: Mr President, there is this ‘confused.com’. If the Report on the agenda is passed,

but then to do the Supplementary Order Paper requires Standing Orders and Standing Orders require a different voting procedure altogether, we could end up, Mr President – somebody could – with supporting the Report, but the Chief Minister could not get suspension of Standing Orders for this. 4955

Would it not be better – and the Chief Minister should consider this – to withdraw this motion and bring his correct motion to the next Tynwald?

The President: Mr Henderson. 4960 Mr Henderson: Eaghtyrane, there have been several good points made here. Vainstyr Loayreyder is, I believe, correct in what he has pointed out and one or two other

Members have pointed the same issue. I know there is background noise, Eaghtyrane, that is saying, no, let us debate it, let us debate it, but I feel that we are stretching the flexibility of Standing Orders to the limit here and, certainly for myself, I would like the Clerk of Tynwald to 4965 explain to Members the relevant Standing Orders, so we know exactly where we are and we are not confused.com, or I am actually in support of Mr Lowey, Hon. Member of Council –

The President: Mr Henderson, I can assure you we are not stretching Standing Orders in any

regard. The motion was put on the Order Paper in good time, exactly the same on your No. 1 4970 Order Paper, in its proper order at its proper time.

The motion is there. The Chief Minister has proposed that motion on the Order Paper. I told you before you broke, Hon. Members that, subject to your acceptance or not of Item 8, I would go on to Item 13. As a result of that, Hon. Members and how you were to vote on that one, then we would take a Supplementary Order Paper, subject to your suspending Standing Orders. 4975

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, can I just say that here we have an Item that says: ‘Tynwald notes the conclusions of the Council of Ministers Governance Committee in Part 2 of this report on the Independent Review of the Scope and Structure of Government’ – 4980 The President: Sorry, Mr Karran, I cannot hear what you are saying, sir. Mr Karran: Sorry. 4985 - ‘and that the recommendation as set out in paragraph 3.4.1 of Part 3 of this report be approved.’

The fact is it has been superseded – The Chief Minister: No, it hasn’t! 4990 Mr Karran: – because the fact is that we have had a major policy change in it, and the fact is

that it is not the correct document that should be in front of us. We are the highest Court in the land. We are a modern, mature democracy. You do not make

legislation, you do not have things done on the hoof. I believe, Eaghtyrane, that we are being 4995 asked to approve the recommendations of the Report that has already been superseded. The fact is the proper parliamentary way would have been – like with the Order in Item 13 – we would have suspended Standing Orders to allow the Government to come to the parliamentary assembly to debate this issue this month.

Eaghtyrane, that is how it should be, as far as I am aware, and I believe that if the Chief 5000 Minister did not think he had the push, this is actually a helpline to him to give him another month to get it worked out right.

The Chief Minister: It’s worked out now! 5005


_________________________________________________________________ 986 T127

The President: Mr Karran, I did tell you before that, in fact, after Item 13 you would be subject to suspending Standing Orders to change. I know where you are coming from, sir. All I am saying is that the Order Paper is correct. The motion as it is was put on the Order Paper is in its proper form.

I am actually in Tynwald’s hands. I am in your hands how you vote on the matter. 5010 Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Mr President, yes, I will seek to move an amendment, which the Clerk is – Mr Callister: Sir, it has not been seconded, has it? 5015 The President: We have not got an amendment. Mrs Christian: Yes, it has. Mrs Craine – 5020 The President: Have we got the amendment? I do not have any amendment, sorry, Mrs

Christian. Mrs Christian: It is being drafted, sir. 5025 The President: Pardon? Mrs Christian: It is being drafted, sir. The President: In whose name? 5030 Mrs Christian: In my name. The President: Mr Cannan. 5035 Mr Cannan: Mr President, can I move an adjournment? Can I move that this matter be

adjourned to the next sitting of Tynwald? Mr Karran: I will second that, Eaghtyrane. I believe it is the most sensible way forward. 5040 The Chief Minister: Absolute nonsense!

Motion for adjournment Motion lost

The President: Hon. Members, we have a move to adjourn the motion on the Order Paper. Standing Orders say the adjournment motion cannot be moved or seconded by a Member who

moved the motion or has already spoken. Once the adjournment motion is made, debate is limited to the adjournment and a maximum of five-minute speeches. The mover has the right of reply and 5045 it will require 13 votes in the Keys and five in the Council, Hon. Members. The motion is made. Speak to the adjournment.

Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 5050 I really do not know why there is confusion and I am certainly surprised that it is coming from

Mr Speaker. Can I just say, it is straightforward. That Report is before the Hon. Court and I have moved that Report. Nothing else. What I have done is give an undertaking, verbally, that I am willing, and Council are willing, to amend the Order that will actually bring in the new Department that we have agreed that we will actually have, and instead of a Department of 5055 Environment, there will be a Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture.

So Members are being asked to approve that Report. If they approve that Report, we then go on to Item 13, which is the legislative Orders that bring it all into being, which we will have to do, whatever we do. If we approve those coming into being, we will have, then, Orders that will bring into being that Report, as it actually stands. 5060


_________________________________________________________________ 987 T127

I have given a commitment to this Hon. Court here today, as I have outside that, then, the Government is happy to move to a stage where we actually amend the legislative Orders to bring about a new Department, called Environment, Food and Agriculture, and that is subject to a Supplementary Order Paper which you have already indicated will be taken if, in fact, Item 13 is also approved. That will then amend the Orders at Item 13 to bring in the legislative change 5065 necessary to get to where I have already said we will go – which is that we then have a Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture. It is a quite straightforward process. It is not unique. I do find it unfortunate that it is being made out to be something that is wrong. It is quite straightforward, sir, and I would hope Hon. Members would keep that in mind.

There are three processes. Firstly, you are being asked to approve the Report, in its entirety as 5070 it is, with an undertaking from me that we will move forward. Second, is to approve the Orders to bring that into being, and then the third will be a Supplementary Order Paper, which will have unanimous support of the Council of Ministers, to actually provide for the change of name to create a Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, following my undertaking, both to this Hon. Court today and to the farming community outside of this Hon. Court. Quite 5075 straightforward, sir. No need to adjourn.

The President: Mr Watterson. Speaking to the adjournment, sir. Mr Watterson: Mr President, I think it is pretty clear, the logical processes, and I appreciate 5080

the semantics of the procedures. I think we all know what we are voting on as we go through this. I think we all know where we stand on this as we go through it. Let us just get on. (Members: Hear, hear.) Let us have the debate. Let us make a decision. (A Member: Absolutely.) I think that the lines are drawn, sir.

5085 The President: Mr Lowey, Hon. Member. Mr Lowey: I find that last statement to be rather irresponsible in parliament – ‘Never mind the

rules! Let’s get on with it, because we know!’ (Interjections) 5090 The Chief Minister: We’re following the rules! Mr Lowey: The rules and the Standing Orders of the Court are clear, in my view, and they

reflect, in this instance, Mr Speaker’s… I cannot recall – the Chief Minister may be able to, because his memory is very good on these things – I can never, ever recall a Government paper 5095 being presented to this Court, knowing –

The President: We’re not there yet. Mr Lowey: – that we had changed it from the time it was printed to be presented to this Court, 5100

with the promise that it will be amended to suit the Government of the day. Parliament is here to hold the executive to account. Now, this has got nothing to do with the issue; this is procedures. Precisely the very point that some Members may feel this is irksome, those procedures are there for a purpose, (Several Members: Absolutely.) and you ignore them at your peril. (Interjection by the Chief Minister) 5105

Now, however we do it, this is not right. I again ask the Chief Minister to give me an example of where this has happened in the past, because I have been here a while and I cannot recall one of these being presented by Government and then being told, ‘We’ve changed our minds – we’ve passed the original, which we know is wrong, and we’ll change it, when the next set of Orders come through.’ I have never heard of it. I cannot recall it. I am open to persuasion, but if the Chief 5110 Minister can tell me, I am prepared to listen.

The President: Can I make the point, Hon. Members, as I did before, that Standing Orders are

not being broken. Standing Orders are in line, Hon. Members, and even to Mr Lowey, who has been here a long time, the Standing Orders are correct. The motion is on the Order Paper is in its 5115 correct form. There is no question about it.

Item 13 is on the Order Paper, as a legislative process in its correct form. The Supplementary Order Paper: I indicated to the Court at five o’clock that I was prepared to accept that. On your President’s acceptance of that, it would be subject to this Court to suspend Standing Orders, whether or not they wish to take it at that stage. Nothing else, and no change to that. 5120

Mr Callister.


_________________________________________________________________ 988 T127

Mr Callister: I think we do have to adjourn, Mr President, because, if we get to Item 13 and the suspension of Standing Orders is rejected, we then find that we have voted for a Department of Community, Culture and Leisure, with all of the other items that were thought to be undesirable and the Chief Minister wanted to change. I can see… I do not disagree that the Chief Minister 5125 might change it, what I am saying is, when you get to Item 13, you may not get that vote and, in that case, then, we have voted for the old Report and there will be a lot of members of the agricultural societies in the Island laughing their boots off!

The President: The same applies, Hon. Members, if you vote against Item 8, you stay exactly 5130

as you are. Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. I do not think that we should adjourn the debate today. I think that we should proceed with it, 5135

because there are some important issues in there that do need to be decided upon. I can only assume that the Chief Minister is expecting this motion to be turned down, because I cannot understand why he would want us to approve a motion which he is then going to change and I think it would be far better for this Court to have the opportunity to vote on the structure, as he has outlined his intention to move agriculture into another Department. I think that can be done by 5140 way of an amendment and, to that end, Mr President, I think we should not adjourn, but get on.

The President: Can I make it plain again, or I will try, Hon. Members. The motion is on the

Order Paper, as it is, correctly. If you approve the motion on the Order Paper today, you accept the Report. Item 13, which I told you I would bring to you next, will introduce the legislative progress 5145 to put that into being. Once that is put into being, it is still the complete Report, as it is. The Chief Minister has indicated that, on a Supplementary Order Paper, he is prepared to seek suspension of Standing Orders to bring in new provisions. That, then, is up, again, to the Court. That is where we are at, Hon. Members.

Speaking to the adjournment, Mr Speaker. 5150 The Speaker: Speaking to the adjournment, Mr President, in listening to your very careful

explanation I have no doubt that, as you have described it, it would deliver a result one way or the other. What, though, is entirely unsatisfactory and unprecedented is for Government to come to Tynwald Court with a motion that it knows it does not want to see implemented because, 5155 procedurally, it will invite us to implement something different, i.e. a Department of Agriculture and Environment, which is not in the Report and which is not argued for in the Report.

What the Government should have done, and it could have done procedurally simply by withdrawing the original Report and bringing back a No. 2 report with the correct recommendation in terms of structure, which would then flow logically to Item 13 for the Transfer of Functions 5160 Order. That would be treating Tynwald Court with respect; not this convoluted procedure.

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Mr President. I do take exception to being accused of not treating Tynwald Court with respect. I have been

very respectful. I have laid it out, I have set it out, and the procedure, sir, is straightforward. 5165 Mr Karran: What is that point of order? The President: Continue, Mr Speaker. 5170 The Speaker: Mr President, I am afraid Tynwald is being done a disservice by Government

employing this particular procedure. Whether it was of its own making or not, or late in the day or not, the fact remains that there

was an opportunity to withdraw this particular motion, come back with a replacement report, a very simple addendum to the Report, which would set out what Government actually wants to 5175 achieve by the Transfer of Functions Order. That would have been treating Tynwald Court properly.

Having said that, Mr President, I have no doubt that your ruling on the matter as to how we get out of this totally unsatisfactory situation is procedurally correct the way you have described it. It is second best to what should have happened, but I accept that it could work and will deliver a 5180 result one way or the other. It would have been preferable for this motion to have been deferred and a fresh motion come forward, but that has not happened and, in fact, the mover really, as he


_________________________________________________________________ 989 T127

has described the situation, does not believe that would have been appropriate. I think we will have to disagree on that one and, on that basis, I think on balance I would prefer not to have an adjournment of this debate, but proceed along the way you have described, which procedurally 5185 will resolve the matter one way or another.

The President: Mr Cannan to reply to the adjournment debate, sir. Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr President. 5190 I make no apology for putting the adjournment down. I believe it gave the opportunity for

Members to reflect on it. Your interpretation, Mr President, is correct, but what we have today is that the Chief Minister has put down a motion which he does not wish to implement, as it stands. And that is a fact. He does not wish to implement the motion, but he wants us to debate it and vote on it. 5195

Then, he says, if you support me, I promise to bring another motion, and you will require to suspend Standing Orders and that will be 16 votes in the House of Keys and six votes in the Legislative Council to allow me to then change the content of my original motion, which I did not want to be implemented. That is the convoluted way to do it and I agree with Mr Lowey. I have been here just 11 months less than the Chief Minister. I have not – or cannot recall – any chairman 5200 of executive council or Chief Minister in the twenty seven and a half years that I have been here, using Tynwald for this purpose.

Is it so important to the good governance of the Island that we go through this convoluted motion on the structure of Government, that it has to be done today, instead of in a proper, normal manner of Tynwald procedures? Is the Government of the Isle of Man going to come to a halt, if 5205 all this is not deferred for a month? Life will go on, the Government will go on, the correct taxes will be collected and people will be paid. Nothing will change. It is not that important and I believe that, if you support this, you are – or Tynwald is – creating a precedent. However, it is in the hands of Hon. Members, Mr President.

5210 The President: That is the case, Hon. Members, it is in your hands. The motion I put before the Court is that it be adjourned for one month, Hon. Members, and, as

I indicated to you before, it requires the 13 votes in the Keys and 5 in the Council, Hon. Members. We will go straight to the vote. You may vote. Voting for, is for the adjournment, Hon.

Members. 5215

Electronic voting resulted as follows: In the Keys – Ayes 5, Noes 18

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Earnshaw Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Cannan Mr Crookall Mr Henderson Mr Anderson Mr Gill Mrs Craine Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Gawne The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion to adjourn fails to carry in the Keys: 5 votes for, 18

against.


_________________________________________________________________ 990 T127

In the Council – Ayes 4, Noes 5

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister Mr Crowe The Lord Bishop Mr Downie Mr Lowey Mrs Christian Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, there were 4 for, and 5 against: it fails to carry.

The motion for adjournment therefore fails to carry, Hon. Members.


Report and recommendation – Debate continued The President: Now we will continue with the debate. Hon. Members, I call Mr Watterson. 5220 Mr Watterson: I was not expecting that sort of start. Mr President, the Island is facing challenging times. We have a £142 million hole in our

finances. We have been waiting three years to debate this subject and this, I think, now that we have got it started, will be one of the biggest debates that Tynwald Court has in this five years, and 5225 I am pleased we are having it today.

This is about a vision for the Scope and Structure of Government for, hopefully, the next five to ten years and the Chief Minister has come forward with some very interesting proposals. It has much to commend it. We think we agree that there should be an Agriculture, Environment and Food Department and I think there is a lot to be said about the way that he has managed to change 5230 his mind about providing that. I think that is welcome, as well. I think there is also a lot of support for a Department of Economic Affairs, or Department for Economic Development.

We heard only yesterday in the Budget speech about how economic development is going to be paramount and we are going to need a focal point for economic development in the coming years. I think many in this place would also support the fact that the DHS needs to be split up. 5235 Now, you may disagree on in which ways, but I think there is certainly a recognition that it is a real beast.

It is the Chief Minister’s Government and I have an amendment, but if it fails, I think I will stand back and let him run his Government the way he sees fit. But I do have an amendment and I hope it is being circulated to Hon. Members now. It is not surprising that there will be differences, 5240 and six of us put forward our suggestions, a week ago, to the public so that they could take them on board and consider an alternative set of options. There are thirty-three voting Members in here and I am sure that there are almost as many permutations and combinations that you could come up with, and that is fine. That is all part of that process of putting forward alternatives to Government. But there are some fundamental differences between the report that we put forward 5245 and the Report that the Chief Minister put forward. There is a Department for Corporate Services. There is the abolition of a Department, and therefore the real opportunity for cost savings, and there is a change in moving Social Security to the Treasury, rather than leaving it within the Department of Health. Those were plans that six of us put forward but I would like to make it quite clear that that is not what we are voting on with this amendment, which I will come to in a 5250 moment.

The main thrust of the argument that I am putting forward today is that, fundamentally, before we consider restructuring Government, we need to have a clear idea of our vision for the future and our Government’s part in that. Well, we have had a vote on the Brown Book and that is our direction for the future. Now comes the Government’s role in that and the scope of Government, 5255 and this is where I know I and the Chief Minister have some pretty fundamental disagreements. The Chief Minister’s views are well-known and we have heard competing views yesterday along the spectrum, from David Cannan’s contribution about running cafés and bars, to Eddie Lowey’s contribution about a Manx Thatcherism.

There is a complete spectrum of views in this Court, and that is important to get out there, to 5260 get that aired, and to have all those voices, with those opinions, shaping the view and the structure of Government and the scope of Government. I personally believe that changing the scope of Government is our best chance of real savings in these tough economic times. Without having that


_________________________________________________________________ 991 T127

scope for change you are going to really struggle to find the £26 million of savings in a year that was presented in the Budget yesterday. That is my view. 5265

We come on to the amendment. I hope all Members have had the opportunity to look at it and consider it. This is very similar to the one that was circulated last Wednesday. There are a few extra bits on the end but it is substantially the same motion that was circulated to all Members here today, last week. The amendment is about greater engagement. It is about getting those who are going to have to implement this change, those who are going to be significantly affected by this 5270 change, to sign up to this change. That is Members of this Court, those who are at the head of the Civil Service and other key voices who are going to be in charge of implementing this.

The amendment has a number of parts and I would, with your indulgence, Mr President, hope that they could be voted on separately as four separate parts. The first part of the amendment alters the preamble and it notes the Council’s Report, notes the alternative suggestion, notes the original 5275 Report put by the Review Committee in 2006. So they are all on the floor, they are all up for debate.

It then goes on. It calls on the Government to undertake consultation on the key features, so you end up getting those views in about the whole spectrum of views that will exist around the Court. It calls for consultation. That is going to drive out better and clearer explanations of the 5280 functions and thinking to the public. We will get the buy-in, and then, if the amendment is carried, if the Government goes away, does its thinking, does its sounding out, there will be a clear mandate for Government to go forward with whatever it brings forward. At least it will have been properly considered and every Member of Tynwald will have had an input, a meaningful input, before a revised set of plans is published. 5285

The amendment also calls for consultation, not just on the structure of Government, but its scope. What the Chief Minister offers is one thing, but it does not significantly change the scope of Government, and I think that is something that will be a massively missed opportunity if we do not discuss the scope of Government.

The amendment also does unite behind the Department for Economic Development, because I 5290 think there is a strong feeling around this Court that this is certainly something that is required and needed, and a way forward for Government. It does require Government to have all this done, to come back in July. It will then have all summer to implement its changes – and the Chief Minister is pretty confident that he can have this all up and running by the start of April, according to his plans, so having this done… The amendment says in July 2010 – it should have said ‘no later’, but 5295 it says ‘no sooner’ – my apologies. (Interjections) It requires Government to have this done by the summer and it would give the Government the summer to implement its changes. By the time we all come back in October for Tynwald, it should be implemented, it should be up and running and the Ministers should be in place, in post and ready to bring forward their motions and answer their Questions in October Tynwald. 5300

This amendment is not about an aversion to change. This is about, perhaps, the change that is proposed is not enough. It is about the fact that the changes that the Chief Minister is offering is not going to save any money, which is pretty key at the present time. The fact is that, at the moment, this is not being bought into by those outside the Council of Ministers; and we did not hear a categoric denial this morning that it was not the view of the entirety of the Council of 5305 Ministers.

So, I believe that this offers a broader opportunity for Members to consider wider options in the months ahead. There is already a significant number of names behind this amendment. I hope that there will be more, and I look forward to the debate, Mr President.

I therefore beg to move the amendment standing in my name: 5310 To leave out the words after ‘Tynwald’ and add: ‘notes (a) the Council of Ministers Report on the Review of the Scope and Structure of the Isle of Man Government (07/10), (b) the Alternative Proposal in the name of Mr Watterson and others, dated 9th February and circulated to all Members, and (c) the original Review (published September 2006); and 5315 (1) calls on Government to undertake consultation on the key features of all three documents; (2) requires Government to consult on both the scope and structure of Government; (3) supports the creation of a Department for Economic Development; (4) further requires the Government: (a) to make an assessment of: 5320 (i) initial set up costs; (ii) longer term costs; (ii) impacts of moves on staff and other resources; (iv) how budgets will be re-apportioned;


_________________________________________________________________ 992 T127

(v) what staffing and building moves will have to be made; and 5325 (vi) the scope for savings in better use of Government Buildings and rented accommodation; and (b) to provide an analysis of where funding for the changes will come from and the justification for this spending, and identify short and long term savings as a result of the restructuring process; and 5330 (c) to examine alternative approaches for examining this matter, including a cross-Government working party, similar to the Children’s Committee; and is of the opinion that when the consultation, assessment and analysis are collated, they should be published in a business proposal for approval by Tynwald no later than July 2010. 5335 The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I am quite happy to second the amendment. I think it has a lot of merit in what Mr Watterson

has just alluded to, Eaghtyrane. It is in its various formats and I would certainly second his call 5340 that, if we are able to vote on the elements separately, I think that would be a good way to go forward with it.

Eaghtyrane, I have quite a substantial input I wish to put into this debate, and I have gone through all the paperwork in some degree of depth and come to various conclusions. What I am not happy with, though, is the embarrassment tactics that have been used prior to this debate 5345 against Hon. Members, that, ‘Oh, you are against change, you are against reform, you are against economic development,’ and so on. I take great exception to that because I think all of us want change, all of us want reform, all of us want economic drivers. But I think the nub of the matter is how we get to those targets, and just because some of us might not support the Chief Minister’s idea of a way forward – or the Council of Ministers’, I should say – does not mean one jot that we 5350 are against certain initiatives or supporting the community. I was disappointed to hear about supporting the health and the care of the community and so on. We have all just unanimously voted £8½ million into the Health Service without a blink, and everyone was very happy to do that, Eaghtyrane, so the system to care for our community is already there and working very nicely, so I would take exception to that, Eaghtyrane. 5355

Vital for the success of our community… We are all in favour of that. It is how we get there, Eaghtyrane; that is the thing that is bothering me. In making my assessment, Eaghtyrane, we are led to believe that this Report, as far as we can gauge, has full Council of Ministers’ endorsement. We need to make that clear, because I think that is fundamental to this. We have had no denial of this from the Chief Minister, so we have got to assume, unless he corrects us later, that the original 5360 document, indeed the one that is before us – and I would tend to agree with Mrs Christian on this, Eaghtyrane that, in fact, we have been invited to vote against it in many ways – did have full Council of Ministers’ support, and we need to make that clear.

Eaghtyrane, when the original remit was drawn up, utilising some of the finest political minds around, I had hoped that we might actually get somewhere with this. Sadly, this has not been the 5365 case. I suppose, in reality, there was about as much chance of that happening as Andy Burnham MP admitting he was wrong in not reviewing the way in which his government severed our Reciprocal Health Agreement.

Mr Anderson: He changed his mind. 5370 Mr Henderson: However, what we have now, as a result of the independent Committee’s

deliberations, is a Report resembling, as far as I am concerned, a science fiction extravaganza so bizarre that it is difficult to absorb the contents. I was left mesmerised at the lack of substance in this piece of work. How on earth do you dissect nine Government Departments – nine Ministries – 5375 with a combined budget of nearly £500 million and a staff of 8,000-plus souls and put it all back together into what I am terming a booklet? We have got that in our packs as well. The answer is you cannot.

What we have ended up with is, essentially, a brief snapshot and nothing more, with regard to an issue that will have a profound effect on the Government, its employees and the people of this 5380 Island as a whole. What we are being asked to vote on is a digest of every imaginable recommendation the original Committee have dreamed up and, as far as I am concerned, whilst playing their Xboxes at the same time. There is no business case accompanying any of the recommendations as such, and certainly nothing compelling within the Council of Ministers’ document before us now, so, as far as I am concerned, we are just being invited to vote blind. 5385


_________________________________________________________________ 993 T127

This is not a game; there are serious consequences flowing from these proposed changes, and for the many people whose lives these changes will affect. We can see that graphically now, with the waves of uncertainty washing across Government, causing staff side representatives to be inundated with calls of concern and departmental work slowing up. In one fell swoop, we have effectively created our own virtual tsunami. I could not exaggerate the anxiety and concern that is 5390 being expressed in some areas – not just agriculture. I am also seriously concerned as to what depth the original analysis the Quayle Report has drilled down to, which this Council of Ministers’ document is based upon. The Quayle assessment, as far as I can see, is not a root-and-branch review – which it should have been. This is a monumental task, requiring an immense amount of work in detail. That Committee have not, in my view, achieved this. 5395

I would cite the Forestry Section as an example of concern. Both Reports refer to a recent Forestry review: what that report is is not made clear. I asked this, as Forestry underwent a fundamental root-and-branch assessment around 2000 – the Donaldson/Edwards Review. This Review is not mentioned. Yet this Donaldson/Edwards Review had, and will continue to have, a major impact on Forestry’s way forward. It impacts on how they do things for the future and 5400 protect internationally important habitats and countryside. The Minister has re-confirmed this to me, when publicly questioned. This leads me to suspect that what we have ended up with, with this Report, is a snapshot – a snapshot across all of Government, which may not give us the full picture that is essential to determine any strategies and is crucial to an exercise of this type.

Eaghtyrane, what other important areas have been missed? We can look at the example of 5405 agriculture, if we like: what else has been missed there, too? It is absolutely vital that we have this root-and-branch detail to give this exercise any validity or credibility. What have we here? A farce at best and a travesty of justice at its worst, and an effort and an affront to the staff and sectors it is attempting to carve up.

To put the icing on the cake, the Council of Ministers are asking us to back their take on the 5410 Quayle Report, which is even lighter on detail, and lacking what I would regard as real substance – a few pages with fine words and management clichés. A few pages it might be, but the effect it has had on our staff and community is quite dramatic, quite profound and, as we know, has a not inconsiderable budgetary impact. Members should be taking serious note of that. The Treasury Minister stated quite clearly yesterday that no funding whatsoever has been identified for this 5415 exercise. The Chief Minister is on public record as saying the costs are unquantifiable. That is what Hon. Members are being asked to vote on.

That is not including the fact that the Deputy Chief Constable has been seconded already to head up the change drive team to bring this forward, ahead of this vote. We have a new acting Deputy Chief Constable now and a huge knock-on effect throughout the entire Police Force as a 5420 consequence. What is that cost, I wonder?

Both the Quayle Committee and the Council of Ministers have spectacularly failed in taking the golden opportunity, as I see it, to widen the remit and herald in some real meaningful changes and make real substantial savings. Where is the real, significant restructuring in order to achieve this? Where are the eight Government Departments? Where is the human resource issue tackled 5425 with one centralised Government section for this? Yes, we are looking into this somewhere, but where is it here, enshrined as policy? It is not, it is left completely nebulous, relying on a further review. Where is the cap on all staff numbers? Where are the lean management principles being applied across all Government? Where is the breaking up of the multi-million pound empire, ISD? Where is the local authority reform – and I mean real reform? 5430

How can we possibly now sustain 24 local authorities and combination authorities? Where is any new entrance to Government employment, new terms and conditions on pensions, freezing the liability? There is nothing; not a twitter. Just a notion to build bigger, as far as I am concerned and spend more money we simply have not got. We still do not even know where it has been sourced from. How can we advocate this, which will ultimately cost millions when we have the Treasury 5435 attempting cutbacks in all Departments and I mean we cannot argue that: they are, and we have to support that.

So how on earth can we balance this inequitable paradox, slicing budgets in swingeing cutbacks on the one hand and pushing up our taxes, electricity costs and vehicle tax and, in the other, pouring a waterfall of taxpayers’ money into an ill-conceived project such as this. I tell you, 5440 Eaghtyrane, what has been achieved, along with the severing of the reciprocal health arrangement, it has done no more than to upset the entire community and our staff to a depth, as low as it is, reminiscent of the feeling prior to the 1996 General Election. The disenchantment, anger and resentment is amazing out there at the minute and this proposal is the tip of that iceberg. The more this proposal is pushed, the deeper the hole this Government will dig and the more resentment that 5445 is being harboured.


_________________________________________________________________ 994 T127

It was also a chance to restructure, in my view, how Treasury do things and combine some of the sections of DTI, such as the plethora of economic adviser managers costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, as we now know, into a proactive team with the private sector and going out to the UK and beyond and selecting business targets and making real, meaningful and outstanding 5450 sales pitches to large businesses, big hitters, to come and relocate to the Isle of Man, not building new empires. Where such a section for this strategy has been placed… I do not see this allocated anywhere within the restructuring and yet this is a divisional section that Government so desperately needs to ensure that our Island can continue to survive and develop in this very challenging economic climate. 5455

Note, I say ‘section’, not empires. I fully agree we can ill afford to become stagnant with the same slow growth model that we have been leaving to chug along for the past 20 years. Yes, I agree changes are urgently needed, but what we do not need is to reinvent the wheel at further massive cost that we cannot possibly afford.

What is required is re-focusing, sharpening and re-defining what we have in place already, 5460 recognising the current resources, expertise, experience, dedication and hard work of our staff. You do not need a Report bringing in further massive change, on top of what will undoubtedly happen as a result of yesterday’s Budget. Ask the staff, the experienced people in the field, what is needed. Get them to organise a strategic economic working party, not empires.

The very idea of a Department of Economic Development that is listed in the Report is, I am 5465 afraid, just shuffling around sections and divisions of Government. It is not the panacea to all our ills and woes at the minute. Certainly, it has taken on a new buzzword and almost a mantra-like name for itself but, in essence, we need to examine what we are really trying to achieve here. It is seen as the most important thing we need to do, the thing that is going to save the Island, the thing that is going to solve everything. That tells me we have been complacent in our comfort zones to 5470 the point of negligence, if the penny is only dropping now. This strategy and policy should have been ongoing and developed over the last few years, in any case; not now, in a panic.

We have a Chief Secretary’s Office. Why have we a senior management development project? Why are we spending hundreds of thousands of pounds wafting countless numbers of staff around Harvard? We have a Chief Officers Group and a Corporate Leadership Group. We have expertise 5475 in Treasury and Economic Affairs, in DTI, in the Financial Supervision Commission and the private sector. Our key staff need to be seconded as and when required, as they are now, to these groups with a new flexible work ethic, a possible change of job descriptions, working with key figures from the private sector, as a business wealth generation team, with an ability to arrange meetings with important business executives to make our pitch to them and their staff on a one-to-5480 one basis at corporate headquarters. They should be able to generate a range of new and substantial business initiatives and drive them forward. We need to be targeting the big hitters, companies, to relocate to the Isle of Man. We need to be building on the work that has and is already taking place and ramp it up to the level that is now required. The foundations, Eaghtyrane, for this are already there. We do not need to build more; we just need to refurbish what is there 5485 already.

We have the resources, the expertise, the training and the staff. What needs to happen is that it requires to be driven with more vigour and robustness. I could agree to a senior manager temporary post to pull the strands of that together, but not new empires. We have adequate structures now. The Treasury is that foundation, the economic powerhouse, as we have just heard 5490 by way of this year’s Budget. This is where my proposals should be developed from and based maybe, but certainly part of the Treasury. This team needs to work with the Treasury, the Financial Supervision Commission, the Attorney General’s office and the finance sector to develop and improve the Island’s business-attractive environment to give us the market edge we need, then market and business-generation initiatives can be worked up from that redefined 5495 platform with a new tenacity, drive and vision.

That is what is needed. We need to be pushing our selling points harder: political stability, favourable tax and business legislation, flexibility, international recognition, blue-chip status, robustness, resilience and space. Our rivals do not have this combination and do not have space for development. 5500

We hear of spies in the camp trying to tempt business away to Switzerland and other places. What have we been doing about it? Where is the counter strategy? If we have known about that for as long as we have, why aren’t we doing something? Where are our representatives going out to business to see if they are alright, or need assistance with anything to keep them here? This was thrown at us in the Chief Minister’s briefing as a reason to build all these new empires. We were 5505 told we need this to generate the economy. We need it; it is beneficial for the Isle of Man, as we have heard. We need to safeguard the future. Guernsey and Jersey are pouring money at similar.


_________________________________________________________________ 995 T127

But I still have not heard any resounding business case and budgetary justification to make these sweeping changes.

I say this, Eaghtyrane, because the reasons outlined for this change by the Chief Minister as 5510 new reasons, or apparently new reasons, have, in fact, always been here. They are not new, they have always been there; we have just not been addressing them as well as we should. What has happened is we have become complacent. The good times have clouded people’s vision, strategic thinking, drive etc, and they have lost their eye on growing the economy to the extent, maybe, we should have been looking at it – and I am sick of bringing that up at every policy debate and every 5515 Budget debate. The establishment have just glossed over that, but I am afraid some birds may have come home to roost.

What is really needed is to stretch and push the systems and resources we have now to their full capacity, now the comfort zone of complacency has been removed. That is the real issue to be addressed. We do not need empires to do that. What we need are commonsense approaches that 5520 utilise what resources we have now, and the expertise, into cross-Departmental working action groups, with a lead person taking overall responsibility for specialist projects when required: a fluid management arrangement, flexible, that can be wound up, or wound down, easily and reformed just as easily, quick to respond and have the authority to do so. It could be headed up politically, if desired, or not, as the case may dictate; but it must have Council of Ministers’ 5525 decision-making authority to react fast to change, challenges and initiatives. Funding: the Media Development Fund is already there; no extra required; staff in post; more transparency of that Fund. ‘It will not work’ – why not? We have a cross-Government Children’s Working Party that has four Ministers as part of that team – and I have worked on that team – seconded staff and staff brought in, as and when; no empire building. This team, unprecedented in Government history, 5530 has worked hard, assessed the situation from the Children’s Commission of Inquiry, worked up ideas, ways forward and realistic solutions, which also match this new world order we find ourselves in now. It has worked well. So, I do not see why a further cross-Government working party, or whatever you want to call it, could not work. It depends if there is a will or not.

What also requires to happen is sweeping changes to many senior posts within Government, so 5535 that pay is linked to performance in more meaningful ways, not a pay-boost mechanism. Performance criteria need to reflect savings made and what business has been generated. We need to see tangible results. This is totally unclear at a lot of times, currently, Eaghtyrane, and I cannot remember the last time that we had a corporate headquarters relocate here, as I think about it.

What are these people doing for us? How are we monitoring this on a performance basis? That 5540 is what is required. What we could do with is a quarterly economic development report, so all Tynwald and the public can see what activity has, or has not, been generated. Then we will know what is required to be targeted. What purpose is there going down to Cannes and all the rest of it that was mentioned yesterday? How can we quantify that in real terms? How is it measured?

5545 A Member: It is where the business is. Mr Henderson: It is an almost plausible argument we were given yesterday, except we have

not got any real tangible proof, have we? Some areas have grown, but what that was due to could be debatable. 5550

But, Eaghtyrane, everything is not rosy in the garden, otherwise we would not see the business that has left us and we would not be having this debate. Things have not been working as well as they should, and it has taken this now to get things started. Gone are the days of selling our wares from stalls in corridors and shows. We need to move out now, more than ever, and drive our Island forward, stepping up our game and giving us the recognition that we need. It does not take a new 5555 empire to achieve that. We just need to do our jobs better and differently.

All I know, Eaghtyrane, is that the public, whom we have just waded into with the Budget and all the side charging, are rightly suspicious of this move. They are angry. This has the potential of being hugely expensive, as I have said. How can we justify it, and vote on something we are not sure of, with regard to the costs? The Report curiously shows peculiar new configurations that 5560 make no sense at all and which, in essence, are merely the metamorphosis of the old nine Departments. We have seen what happened to agriculture and the U-turn there. I am very worried now, Eaghtyrane, because if something was wrong there, and we have fixed it, what else is wrong? We have still got the fishing industry’s points of view to take on board, as well.

That should send out warning signals to Hon. Members. As far as I am concerned, this needs 5565 more thinking through, and certainly an impact assessment to take account of possible effects. It is still very much on track, as far as I am concerned, otherwise we would not have been able to make the changes we did. So, how do we vote on that?


_________________________________________________________________ 996 T127

It is evident there has been no consultation and we have heard why. I would suggest that Members need to be careful of the explanations given on that. As far as I am concerned, when we 5570 are told consultation is not required, then we have got to look at how come, then, this is going to affect thousands of people, our community, to a greater or lesser degree and business sectors. Apparently, it is internal re-organisation and did not warrant it! It did not affect anyone is what we were told. Yet we know exactly what is going to happen here and how many people are going to be affected. We just need to ask the staff, or our staff side representatives, that. The way the 5575 document and its recommendations have been brought forward, as far as I am concerned, is in contravention of Government’s own governance guidance and guidelines on consultation. It flies in the face of both policies.

Eaghtyrane, we have managed our way along with the current structure, provided the Budget we have just received with the current structure, and been as successful as we have with the 5580 current structure, so why do we need to steamroll a decision on such a monumental task? Why the rush? What are the real reasons to push this through at such a rapid rate? The shock that these Reports has brought not only to the farming community but to the wider community and to our staff, I think it is only right and fair that we do adjourn our debate, as per the amendment, until we have had a full and frank consultation. 5585

I would also be very interested to hear from all our staff and any alternate proposals they may have. For instance, we have the Chief Executive of the Financial Supervision Commission on £¼ million-plus salary. We have Treasury officials paid handsomely, and, as far as I am concerned, rightly so. We saw Treasury staff here last night working flat out for the Minister. They knew all the answers he was fishing for instantly. That is what we need to be tapping into – harnessing that 5590 experience and ability. We need more information and a business plan with costings, or an indication of costings, where those costings are coming from and the justification. The proposals are so fundamental that we at least owe our community the courtesy of consultation and input into any change process of this magnitude, and especially our staff.

Eaghtyrane, I think I have made the points very, very clearly and I do not need to go on about 5595 the consultation as such, but I would just put a rider on, that yesterday some of my comments were skewed deliberately, with regard to the fact that my input was not in favour of the economic development and a couple of other points I had a set-to with the Treasury Minister on. I just need to make it clear that I am in favour of economic development; it is how we are going to do it. That is the thing, Eaghtyrane. Luckily for me, I am on public record pushing for that. 5600

So, yes, we do need to have change. We need to have our economic development ramped up to meet the new challenges, but not in this way. I have offered an alternative approach and I think the amendment, which gives us the various elements laid out, will give Hon. Members that kind of choice and something more than a steamroller effect here, a chance to breathe and make their own assessments and hear what others have got to say, Eaghtyrane. I think that is important. 5605

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would just like to say that, whilst I will be happy… if only to try

and get sanity to prevail, instead of vanity, in this Court, I will be happy to support the amendment 5610 from the gang of six, as far as Mr Watterson is concerned, even though I have to be perfectly honest with you that I think ‘no sooner than July 2010’ might have been better, giving them the flexibility. I think the point is that we should support this because, at the moment, it seems to be the only show in town.

Eaghtyrane, I had a prepared speech on the radical review of the structure, role and size of 5615 Government, as needed, and as I said in supplementaries and in the Budget yesterday, what was said only last month has now turned out to be something completely different.

Eaghtyrane, I think it is important that this Court realises that, in a functioning democracy, the need for an independent judiciary, an independent executive and an independent parliament… One of the problems we have with these proposals today… I generally have a number of staff who do 5620 not say it as straight as they would like to say it to me, but who are just looking in complete and utter bewilderment, as far as this whole thing, the way it has been put together. In fact, I said I am sure that it has just been put together to try and get their tame press, to get them away from the reciprocal health fiasco. Maybe that was not the case, but I have to be honest with you: there were a lot of people outside who wondered what was the speed of this half-thought-out idea. 5625

I think it is even more concerning, Eaghtyrane, that, like the Member of Council, Mr Lowey, said, this is the first time I have got a document to approve that I know is going to be superseded. Eaghtyrane, this is the thing that worries me.


_________________________________________________________________ 997 T127

It is alright the Chief Minister saying, ‘Oh, well, we did it this way with the Council of Ministers.’ I was there towards the end, when ministerial Government came about. In fact, I think 5630 I was the only one who voted against it, so I am consistent. (Laughter)

Mr Earnshaw: What a surprise! A Member: Hear, hear. 5635 Mr Karran: But there were reasons why I was consistent, because the fact is we have lived

through the biggest economic boom this nation has seen – even greater than the minerals that were found in the 1850s and onwards, as far as that, and more likely even before the Revestment Act 1765. 5640

What concerns me and why I voted against it at that time – and I think actually this debate today has proven my point – you cannot have a parliamentary assembly where, if that motion was for the Hon. Member for Onchan, it would not even get through the doorway. That comes down to putting the balances and the checks, as far as executive Government is in place, because the Hon. Member of Council… I gave him a hard time yesterday over his Budget, but he is so right that the 5645 Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson, is totally inexperienced, as far as the real core issues. Democracy, freedom has to be nurtured. It has to have the right environment, just like the economy… We do not make the money, as I said yesterday. What we do do is we make the environment and that is where I will concede that the ministerial government system did not hinder that environment to help produce the economic boom, but it certainly hindered the 5650 maximisation of where we should be, where we are actually more vulnerable 25 years on, with long-term strategic debt as far as that is concerned. And that is why –

The President: Mr Karran – I am sorry to stop you, sir, but I am getting a little concerned: are

you, or are you not, moving your amendment? 5655 Mr Karran: I am putting my input, sir, before I move my amendment – The President: Right, okay. 5660 Mr Karran: – because I had no right, as you know, as far as that is concerned. This lot can do

what they like; I cannot – The President: Yes, you can, sir. 5665 Mr Karran: – in this Court. Eaghtyrane – The President: Inside Standing Orders. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, the situation is, in my opinion, as far as this debate is concerned, I 5670

think it is important that people realise that this is serious. I do not disagree with the Ard-shirveishagh. I know there are changes needing to take place, and we have to.

What I am concerned about is if we do not do the changes in the right way, the responsible way, the logical way, then all we are going to see is, as I said before, when we heard about this pantomime in the first place: it will be like moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. 5675

Mr Earnshaw: Oh, that’s an original one. Mr Karran: And I think the situation is that we need to be responsible about this. That is why

I believe that, when we look at the proposals there, I would hope that there would be some 5680 consideration over the fact that the motion is coming from me that gives more flexibility to this Court, because it does not put it down in a timescale that they cannot report back before July – even though, to be perfectly honest with you, I would rather them come back in July than come back with something that is as seriously and as fundamentally flawed that it did not even have the ink dried on it, when we had a situation where we have had to have a major U-turn. 5685

I have to say, I applaud the Minister, the Ard-shirveishagh for doing that, because that is the sort of thing that we want from a responsible Government. If there is something that comes about, and they think it is the wrong way, because it is wrong not just because they are going to lose the vote on it, or they are all going to abandon ship, leaving the deckchairs behind, the point is I


_________________________________________________________________ 998 T127

believe that that should be applauded by the Chief Minister and it should not be pilloried about his 5690 proposal, as far as the agricultural Department is concerned. That should be supported.

What should not be supported is this idea that, somehow, it is the same as the Council of Ministers – ‘when we brought in the Council of Ministers, it was just a few Orders.’ It was not, Eaghtyrane. You were there, like I was there. There was primary legislation and then there was secondary legislation and, alright, this is not as fundamental as that proposal, but the reality is it is 5695 strategically important.

We will see next week in the House of Keys, we have got one Bill for First Reading. We have got a situation where we have got senior civil servants, even some Ministers scratching their head, as far as their collective responsibility, as far as this proposal is concerned, but we cannot even get legislation drawn up in the Attorney General’s department and they are greatly concerned about 5700 making sure that they have sufficient time to bring about the secondary legislation, so that it will be watertight, as far as that issue is concerned – from the impression that I have been given. Alright, that is not official, but it is like many things that I have to bring up in here. That is the reality.

The question that needs to be asked, as far as other legislation, as far as the House of Keys 5705 being starved, and the Legislative Council have been starved from the resources of being able to get on with other primary legislation… that you are a legislative assembly of this democracy… it has not got the resources to deal with this in such a short time and we deal with our problems. I know that because I am trying to get my Private Member’s Bill sorted out.

Eaghtyrane, I think it is important… There are a couple of other things that I am worried about. 5710 I know what worries me, and I am almost certain to be misrepresented, like we had with the issue to do with the DHSS, when I said about… What I said was it was not about the workers, it was about the management, and it was just funny that… issues to do with the item before – we have had it empty for eight years, the old hospital, all the car park, and issues like that – as far as using the resources of the Department more effectively, to be misrepresented. 5715

What concerns me when I look… out of my prepared statement, which I will not go through because I think people have drawn their proposals, but this introduction of primary legislation to provide a statutory duty for Departments to co-operate… Hon. Members, one of the worries that I have… I have got the battle scars to prove it from when we first started out with ministerial… where we had Departments that were not prepared to prosecute each other. What concerns me 5720 about this is that when you first look at it you think, ‘Well, that’s sensible.’

We brought in legislation 15 years ago – I was one of the instigators – where the public roads, all the utilities are supposed to work together. If the gas board wants to open up, they inform the MEA and the Water Authority and vice versa. Has it worked? No, it has not. Why hasn’t it worked? Because, at the end of the day, we have a situation where everybody is part of the 5725 executive, and what concerns me, Eaghtyrane, is that if this proposal of 3.3.25(iv) goes through, my concern is this introduction of primary legislation to provide for a statutory duty on Departments to co-operate. It will not be the same as the absurdity where we had Departments of Government believing they are above the law; but we will have a situation where we are going to actually emulate the very thing that is very concerning about trying to get open, effective, efficient 5730 government, when we have not got that. It is ‘shoot the messenger’, and if the messenger is saying what needs to be said, try and misrepresent them.

My amendment today was actually to try and help the situation. I believe that it should be an issue… The executive have come up with a proposal. The executive should be scrutinised by the parliament, in my opinion. I would like the Ard-shirveishagh to tell me what the urgency is; why, 5735 a month ago, this was still in the air and the mists of… (A Member: Manannan.) future proposals as far as this is concerned. Now it is a major thing.

I move: To leave out the words after ‘Independent Review of the Scope and Structure of Government 5740 [GD No 07/10]’ and add: ‘and that this report, together with the Transfer of Functions (New Departments) Order 2010 [SD No 70/10], be referred to the Scrutiny Committee to consider and to report with recommendations by the sitting of this Court in June 2010, the Committee to pay particular attention to (a) the value for money represented by the proposed changes; and (b) whether the proposed new structure increases or reduces the risk of conflicts of interest 5745 arising between different components of the same ministerial portfolio.’ Now, I actually think that is what a modern… That is why I am not in Government. That is

what a modern democracy has. It has the parliamentary scrutiny that says, right, Government has done its job. It has come up with its proposals and, at the moment, these proposals are not funded, 5750


_________________________________________________________________ 999 T127

they are not logic, and most people, if they had the freedom to be able to say this in the Civil Service, will look at this in utter despair, and say once again, we have got the Duke of Wellington and he is leading his men up a hill where there is nowhere to be going, as far as the issue is concerned.

Hon. Members, I believe that the most sensible way forward… We are trying to create 5755 parliamentary democracy. We are trying to bring about that audit and checks to create that situation. I believe that the most sensible way forward is for this proposal to be sent to the Scrutiny Committee – your Scrutiny Committee – which is supposed to scrutinise secondary legislation, scrutinise the systems, as far as the Government is concerned, and report back, for them to work with the Council of Ministers on that point. 5760

Hon. Members, I should imagine that the situation is that the vote can be taken very soon. I just think it would be far more important for the Ard-shirveishagh to accept these lifelines, because it will make it much harder when the general election comes up in 18 months’ time, if we see a load of Ministers blindly following something that has not been thought out, has been brought about for whatever reasons to be seen to be doing something. 5765

Eaghtyrane, I hope this Court will support the amendment standing in my name. The President: Mr Gawne, Hon. Member. Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 5770 Sadly for Mr Karran, I am not standing to second his amendment; I am actually standing to

propose one of my own. Acknowledging that there were quite some considerable concerns and also acknowledging the

support, or help, of the Hon. Member of Council, Mrs Christian, in devising this particular amendment, the amendment that I am proposing basically acknowledges the change that has been 5775 brought about in the last week. That is the change of the position of my current Department. Instead of absorbing the rump of Tourism and Leisure, instead it would absorb the Environment functions. That is effectively the basic tenor of my amendment.

The amendment actually reads: 5780 To add at the end ‘except in so far as (a) the name of the proposed Department of the Environment shall be changed to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture; and (b) the functions of agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation and protection of the countryside as set out in the Department of Community Culture and Leisure be transferred to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture.’ 5785 I think – well, I am sure – that does comply with Standing Orders; otherwise I would not have

been able to move it. I believe that the motion is in line with Standing Orders and this amendment then clarifies the intention of the Council of Ministers.

I know there are concerns from Members. Obviously, we have heard those concerns, but I 5790 believe that this, perhaps by magic, somehow manages to rectify the concerns. I certainly hope so. I see the Speaker is smiling. I presume that means that he is in support now, but perhaps that is wishful thinking.

I think it does now make the Council of Ministers’ intentions very clear on this matter, and I think we also ought to recognise that Council has recognised that it made a mistake with this – that 5795 is why we have brought forward this amendment – and certainly I would wish to apologise to my friends in the farming and fishing community for the anxiety that had been caused by the original proposal. However, we have moved on. We have come forward with a far better solution, as far as I can see now, and I hope that Hon. Members will be able to support my amendment.

I was interested to hear the ‘original’ line from the Member for Onchan about rearranging the 5800 deckchairs.

A Member: A new one, that! Mr Gawne: It is certainly one that I was not that surprised to hear being mentioned when we 5805

had put forward this proposal earlier this month. My concern, though, about the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Rushen, my colleague in Rushen, Mr Watterson, is that rather than rearranging the deckchairs, his amendment is looking at designer deckchair catalogues to see which deckchairs we might wish to purchase at some point in the future.

I think we have to be very clear about this. The amendment that the Hon. Member for Rushen, 5810 Mr Watterson, has put down is a recipe – in my mind, anyway – to squander vast sums of


_________________________________________________________________ 1000 T127

Government money making further assessments, further reviews of the scope and structure. We are talking about item (2) of his amendment:

‘requires Government to consult on both the scope and structure of Government’. 5815

Is not that what we did back in 2006? Are we going to do that all over again? Surely to goodness, we are not going to do that again. We have done that.

I think the important point, for me, is that the Chief Minister made absolutely clear when he stood for that position as Chief Minister – and we all knew it, we all saw it in his manifesto, for 5820 want of a better word – he was not in favour of reducing the scope of Government. There were 31 Members supported the Chief Minister and they all knew that. I happened to be quite supportive of a lot more of the things in the scope and structure Report of 2006. I quite fancy doing a little bit more than that, but we knew what we were getting when we signed up for the Chief Minister. We knew what he felt was appropriate and what was not appropriate and, when it comes to the 5825 structure of Government Departments, if the Chief Minister is not comfortable with them, then we have a big problem. So we have to acknowledge that anybody who really felt… when they were supporting the Chief Minister’s candidacy, must have known what they were voting for.

What we are getting, though, is a restructuring of the Departments and I do think that at least is a step forward and it is a positive step forward and I will go on to speak a little bit more about that 5830 in a moment.

The other thing, I was surprised to hear from the – I am not going to call them the ‘gang of six’ because there were frowns from one of them when that was mentioned earlier – the – I have mentioned it now, so anyway – whatever you want to call them, the new Members, who are behind this amendment of Mr Watterson’s. Their proposal actually split DAFF into two pieces and 5835 I was surprised that they were claiming all the credit for this move of DAFF into the new environment. They had it down in two Departments: Economic Development and Environment so, as I understand it, they were talking about splitting the Department in half and some of the environmental drivers in agriculture and fisheries would be split off into one Department and the remnants would then go into the Environment Department, so I am not sure they can claim all the 5840 credit for that. I am not sure that had the Agriculture and Fisheries Divisions been fully aware that the proposal was to split those functions up, that they would have been quite so supportive, so I am a bit concerned about that.

Something that surprised me – but, then, it is no surprise, I suppose, and Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear of my support for the creation of this – that there is a Department of Manx 5845 Culture. I am surprised that we have not heard from anybody, really, certainly none of the Manx cultural groups. We have not had any significant level of support for this. Perhaps they have not had the opportunity to appreciate just how significant this step is, but the Department of Culture, Community and Leisure to me is a fantastic step forward. It is something that is lacking in the current Government structure. Every other Department in the surrounding islands has a 5850 Department with clear responsibility for culture and I am absolutely delighted that we are proposing that such a Department be established. I think this is a fantastic piece of news for everyone involved in Manx language circles, Manx music, Manx dancing, the heritage areas. It finally gives a clear voice right at the heart of Government for people involved in, and supportive of, the cause of Manx culture. It is absolutely clear to me that is important, it is something that 5855 certainly I have always been very strongly supportive of and have made absolutely clear, at the two elections that I have fought, that I would wish to see Government do more to support. So I am delighted that we have done that.

We also have a much stronger Environment Department in these new proposals. We have a Department of Economic Development, which, again, I think is a very positive step. I do 5860 acknowledge – because I know there have been some sensitivities expressed already in advance of the responses that may come – I do acknowledge that just because Hon. Members are voting against, or may choose to vote against – perhaps after hearing the eloquence of the Chief Minister as he sums up, they will be swayed to support – but I suspect there will be a Member or two that vote against. Clearly, voting against does not necessarily imply that they are against the creation of 5865 an Economic Development Department. It does not imply that but, in effect, that is what is going to happen, because in reality, if we delay this now, if we spin it off into the summertime, the chances of any Minister wishing to take the challenge of a wholly restructured Department within 10 months of the House of Keys being dissolved and a new Election taking place, bearing in mind the inevitable winding down of Departments which always happens in advance of an Election, the 5870 inevitable difficulties there are going to be in making sure that the system works and bedding down, getting all the issues ironed out, and perhaps the few gentle bombs that will be thrown in


_________________________________________________________________ 1001 T127

from Members who are not Ministers, just to test the new structures, just to see whether they are working effectively, I think you would have to be nuts to want to take on a Department under those circumstances! 5875

So I think, in reality, if we are going to do this, it has got to happen in the timescale set out by the Chief Minister. I do not see that knocking this off until June or July… I do not think that Hon. Members should delude themselves if they really think that there is any chance of restructuring happening beyond that. That may be some Members’ intentions, I do not know, but to me, I think it would be a golden opportunity lost. Yes, as I say, voting against does not mean to say you are 5880 against Economic Development, but, in effect, it means that we will lose 18 months of a potential Economic Development Department, whilst all the other governments with which we compete will have Economic Development Departments and will be trying to draw in the business that we will potentially be losing.

We have heard that this is going to cost millions. It is clear that there will be some costs to 5885 restructuring, but I think we have also heard that there is no evidence that this is going to save any money. Yet yesterday, in the Budget, those Hon. Members who will have managed to reach page 37 of the Budget document will have noted the substantial savings that my Department has made, primarily as a result of restructuring. Did we go out to full public consultation to decide we were going to restructure the Department and change the divisions? No, we did not, because we knew 5890 what the response was going to be. We knew that. We knew that other areas that the Department represents may have views and concerns about how the internal structure of my Department worked and they may have expressed those views, but we felt that we knew best how to run our area of activity: we knew how to run the Department.

As it happens, on a rough calculation, we have saved in the region of £½ million. Primarily 5895 that £½ million – this is per annum – has been saved, as a result of the restructuring and the change to the Divisions – added to which the Trout Lodge deal, which was recommended and has been supported in the restructuring Report, saves the Department possibly up to £100,000 per annum. The reduction in costs at the sawmill and the increase in sales adds at least £200,000 this year. We hope to break even by three years’ time. That will be a further £300,000 per annum 5900 saving to the Department so, all in all, the savings that my Department has made through internal restructuring in the Department are close to £1 million per annum – real savings that do not affect services, in fact probably deliver better services.

I think it would be very easy to spend huge amounts of time, huge amounts of money going over the detail, talking to absolutely everyone, assembling piles of information, trying to work out 5905 whether this is going to work, whether that is going to work, how much this is going to cost, is that going to be cheaper, is that going to be more expensive. You could do all that. You could probably spend in one year as much as you are going to save for the next two or three years. I do not know. All I know is that my experience is restructuring works. I believe that there are potentially significant savings to be made. There is a clear case for an Economic Development Department 5910 now, not at some point in the far distant future. Now is the opportunity to do that.

I think the other thing… I do fully understand the concerns of Members that, perhaps, they have not had as much time to consider this as they might, although again, every Member in this Hon. Court has had the Quayle Report for well over three years now, so they have had an opportunity to think about it and consider it. As I say, we all know the Chief Minister’s position. 5915 We have known that from the very day 31 of us supported him as the Chief Minister. So we could not really have expected that a lot of the scope recommendations were going to be supported. Most of the rest is supported, I would say, or significant chunks of the Quayle Report have actually been supported. So, I do not think that we are asking Members to support something which is entirely new and entirely unforeseen. 5920

I think the other bit of reassurance that I would wish to put is – and this possibly describes what a sad case I am – for whatever reason, I was looking at the Manx Radio website this morning and clicked the ‘Virtual Tynwald’ button. Virtual Tynwald leaves whoever it was who was last speak… it leaves their biography details on the screen. The last to speak last night was the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. 5925

I thought, ‘Oh, I haven’t looked at Mr Bell’s biography – I will just have a little flick through there’, and there was Mr Bell as Tourism Minister, in a variety of guises. There were three different Departments of Tourism, three different titles, as I recall, when I was looking through this, and that was in the first three or four years of the existence of that Department. So three different titles. That, to my mind, shows that when you do make these sorts of changes, it is 5930 entirely possible that, in the course of the following years, it is highly possible that changes can be made.


_________________________________________________________________ 1002 T127

I think the Chief Minister has already made it clear the proposals here are not absolutely, wholly, fundamentally set in stone, never to budge again for another 25 years. If and when problems arise, we can tweak those problems, we can change those problems; but fundamentally, 5935 the structure that is before us is a better structure than the one we have. That is why I will be supporting that structure and I hope that Hon. Members will support that, too. Indeed, I hope they will support my amendment.

The President: Hon. Members, before I invite somebody to second Mr Gawne’s amendment, I 5940

want to make it quite plain that I am concerned about that amendment, insofar as I would not wish there to be a challenge at some later date that in fact, we were legally wrong. I do so, because if you read the motion on the Order Paper, it is dealing with the paragraph 3.4.1 of Part 3 of the Report be approved. That, Hon. Members, is quite straightforward. The motion does not transfer any part of any Department to anything else. 5945

The transferring of bits and pieces of one Department to another comes up with the legislative procedures, which I have been trying to tell you, from five o’clock this afternoon, are dealt with in Item 13. Mr Gawne, I am concerned that your amendment is attempting to transfer functions along with 3.4.1 and I know you have the word ‘except’ in, sir, but perhaps if you take the point that we must be careful that we are not transferring functions, because if you read schedule 1 of Item 13 5950 that actually transfers the functions, we would need an alteration to that. As you are aware, you cannot alter an Order; you approve or reject. So I want to be careful that the Court knows what it is doing. Having said that, Mr Attorney, can you help me out of that hole? (Laughter)

The Attorney General: Well, Mr President, I do not think that you have dug yourself into a 5955

hole at all. I think you have simply explained what the law is. The function, Mr President, of the Chief Minister’s motion at the moment at Item 8 is simply that the conclusions of the Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee in Part 2 of the Report on the independent review, be noted and the recommendation, as set out in paragraph 3.4.1 of Part 3, be approved.

As you quite rightly pointed out, the only function of paragraph 3.4.1 is to provide for the 5960 creation of nine new departments. There is no suggestion in paragraph 3.4.1 that any functions whatsoever are being transferred to those nine new departments and, as you have rightly said, sir, that comes later when the Transfer of Functions Order comes along, if at all.

Therefore, Mr President, if we look at the motion now proposed by the Hon. Minister, the Hon. Member for Rushen, certainly part (a) of the motion is entirely right, insofar as it purports to 5965 change – or does change – the name to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, that is an entirely valid motion, but my advice, Mr President, to you and Hon. Members is that if the motion goes on further to approve part (b) which, again, purports to transfer functions that would be ultra vires, outside the powers, of this Hon. Court of Tynwald to do. The only way that can be done is under the Government Departments Act, which is a function of the Governor in Council, 5970 which comes on later in the agenda.

The President: Mr Gawne, do you wish to comment further, sir? Mr Gawne: Yes, just to clarify. It is absolutely clear that just by changing the names we will 5975

not actually achieve what I am trying to achieve with this. What we have to clarify is that the functions of Agriculture, Animal Health, Forestry, Fisheries etc, that were formerly going to be in the Department of Culture, Community and Leisure… The recommendation in the Report is now that rather than going there, they go to this other Department. Clearly, we need the Orders to transfer the functions, but what we are talking about here is the principle as to where we feel they 5980 should go. I apologise if… I thought this was clear, but obviously it is not to everyone.

The President: I am concerned, Mr Gawne, that it could lead to a challenge, and that is my

concern for Tynwald Court. The Order at Item 13 transfers the functions, anyway. That is what transfers the functions. That is the legislative procedure that would transfer the functions. I am 5985 reluctant to move down the road where there may be a grey area.

Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Could I just seek Mr Attorney’s advice? If, in fact, the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne, was altered 5990

in terms that where it says on the third line, ‘…and Agriculture; and notes that the functions of agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation and protection of the countryside as set out in the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure would be transferred


_________________________________________________________________ 1003 T127

to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture’, would that change the basis? It is not saying it will be; it is just saying it would be, if we changed it. 5995

The Attorney General: Mr President, if I may, that has got a fighting chance. You are noting

that those functions are to be transferred. It does not do any harm, Mr President. Certainly, my advice would be, if we keep it as it is, there is a real danger that that part is

completely outside the powers of Tynwald. 6000 The President: Right, Chief Minister, could you tell me exactly what your words were again,

sir, so that I can… The Chief Minister: Yes, Mr President. 6005 On the third line after ‘and Agriculture;’ then it goes ‘and’, then add in there ‘notes that (b) the

functions of agriculture’ etc. Then we go down to the fifth line, and after ‘Leisure’ add in ‘would be’ or ‘would’. So all we are doing is noting that, as a consequence of this, they would be transferred. 6010 The President: Mr Attorney. The Attorney General: I think, Mr President, if I may, and I hope with a view to being of

assistance to the Chief Minister, perhaps if it was to say ‘are intended to be transferred’. In other words, we are steering away from any suggestion that this motion has the effect of 6015

transferring. The President: Now, Mr Gawne – hold it, Hon. Members – Mr Gawne, you have moved this

amendment, sir. I have queried the legality of your amendment in relation to the transfer of Orders which will come later. 6020

We have a bit of a bounce back. Would you accept, sir – (Interjection by Mr Karran) will you accept the wording that has been suggested by the Chief Minister and Mr Attorney, that after ‘Agriculture;’ we put in ‘notes that’, it follows on ‘the functions of agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation and protection of the countryside as set out in the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure are intended to be transferred to the Department 6025 of Environment, Food and Agriculture’? Are you happy to accept that, sir?

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Mr Karran: Point of order, Eaghtyrane. 6030 The President: Mr Gawne – I will come to Mr Karran. Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Yes, I was obviously relying on what I understood to be good advice, inasmuch as the way in 6035

which my amendment was constructed, but if what I am trying to say is better said in those words, then I am happy to go along with whatever the legally approved version is.

Obviously, we had the version from the Clerk of Tynwald; the Attorney General has a slightly different version. Whichever version suits the law best, I am happy with, although clearly what I was suggesting… the principle I am suggesting here is about how the new structure works. 6040

I move: To add at the end ‘except in so far as (a) the name of the proposed Department of the Environment shall be changed to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture; and notes that (b) the functions of agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries, wildlife and 6045 conservation and protection of the countryside as set out in the Department of Community Culture and Leisure are intended to be transferred to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture.’ The President: My concern, Hon. Members, from the start is that, as I indicated to you at the 6050

outset, the motion is plain. I am coming, Mr Karran. The motion is plain. I indicated that I would take Item 13, which is the transfer of functions.

The Chief Minister indicated that he was coming forward with a Supplementary Order Paper. That requires your suspension of Standing Orders.


_________________________________________________________________ 1004 T127

Now, Mr Karran, point of order, sir? 6055 Mr Karran: Yes, Eaghtyrane. How does the Ard-shirveishagh manage to be able to move any

proposed changes as far as amendments are concerned when he has proposed the original motion in the first place?

6060 The President: He has not moved an amendment. Mr Karran: I think it is absolutely incredible, Eaghtyrane, that we are seeing a situation

where the Standing Orders are just being made up as we go along! 6065 The President: Hon. Members, the Standing Orders are not being dispensed with in any way. I

raised the query over whether or not the question of Mr Gawne’s amendment was legal. It was as simple as that. The Chief Minister came up with an alternative suggestion.

Mr Karran: Under what Standing Order has he got the right to do that? 6070 The President: Because I stopped… because I was trying to question Mr Gawne’s legality, sir.

I could either have stopped it in totality or accepted that there was a halfway house. Mr Attorney, I think, accepted there was a halfway house, as I do.

Mr Speaker. 6075 The Speaker: Mr President, just a clarification from Mr Attorney, with all respect to his desire

to ensure that this amendment does not have the Court approving an executive action that might be illegal.

Could I ask him to reflect that what it simply does is refer to the recommendation on the Order 6080 Paper, the recommendation which, in turn, refers to proposals within the Report. All the motion… all the amendment by Mr Gawne is doing, is redefining the proposals in the Report, which the Court is then being asked to approve as a Report, not as an implementation of the proposals. In which case, while the proposed change to wording quite rightly made by the Chief Minister to avoid any executive action being made inadvertently, is quite unnecessary, if we see that the 6085 amendment purely seeks to redefine the proposals in the Report are referred to in the recommendation.

The President: Where you come from is half correct, Mr Speaker, but you forget, sir, that the

transfer of the proposals is already taking place in the Order, which is to come before you at Item 6090 13 and you cannot alter an Order.

Mr Attorney. The Attorney General: Mr President, I understand Hon. Mr Speaker’s concern, but could I

just perhaps reiterate what I said earlier: that the function of Item 8 on our Paper at the moment is 6095 the motion of the Chief Minister that the recommendation, as set out in paragraph 3.4.1 of the Report, be approved.

Now, if we look carefully at 3.4.1, the sole function of 3.4.1 is to provide for the creation of nine new Departments. My concern, Mr President, would be this: that if the motion, as amended by the Hon. Member for Rushen was approved, we would have the extraordinary situation where 6100 we would have eight Departments created in name only, and we would have a ninth Department which would be vested with certain functions – and that surely cannot be the intention.

The intention is that we create all the Departments in name and, of course, it is perfectly proper for the Hon. Member for Rushen to move an amendment to the name, and then we have to await developments on the Order Paper, so that functions can be transferred to those Departments. 6105

The President: Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Could I ask the learned Attorney for some clarification, then, on paragraph

3.3.3, which is, after all, a part of part 3 referred to in the recommendation, which talks about: 6110 ‘A new Department of Community, Culture and Leisure will be created which will have responsibility for the development and implementation of policy on culture, leisure, agriculture and fisheries and the protection of the countryside.’ 6115


_________________________________________________________________ 1005 T127

It seems to me that, unless you take that responsibility away from this Department, because it is specified there, you are left with a confusing situation. I understand that the use of the word ‘function’ may be creating the problem. Would it simply work to take out the words ‘the function of’ and leave it at ‘agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries’, or ‘responsibility for agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries and wildlife be transferred’? 6120

The President: Mrs Christian, I would reiterate that all the 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.3.5

is relevant to Item 13, the transfer of functions. Mr Attorney. 6125 The Attorney General: Mr President, if I may, I think the merit of 3.4.1… and I do

understand the concern again, and I looked at that carefully, Mr President, but it seems to me that the merit of 3.4.1 is it is extraordinarily narrow. It is simply saying that the creation of the nine new Departments be approved.

6130 Mrs Christian: No, it says: ‘… as set out in Part 3 of the Report…’ The Attorney General: 6135 ‘… the proposals as set out in Part 3… providing for the creation of nine new Departments be approved It is not commenting on functions or what they are supposed to do; it is simply creating nine

new Departments. 6140 The President: Mr Quayle. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. If we have a form of wording which… if Mr Gawne’s original amendment can be changed, in 6145

view of what Mr Attorney has said (The President: Yes, fine.) I would be more than happy to second that, if that is a way forward, sir.

The President: Well, if you have your paper in front of you in the name of the Hon. Mr

Gawne, I asked Mr Gawne if he was prepared to accept the change of the wording, which would 6150 read, on the third line, after ‘Agriculture; and’, ‘notes that’ the functions of agriculture, animal health… and then after ‘Leisure’, you would put in ‘are intended to’ be transferred to the Department.

Mr Cannan: Mr President, may I make an observation? This is the most extraordinary way to 6155

conduct the business of Tynwald. I have been here a long time – not as long as you, sir – (Interjections) and as previously said by the Hon. Member of Council, this is most… I can never recall where a Government amendment becomes a matter – the wording – a matter of debate from the Chair, the Attorney General and everybody else, sir.

6160 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Cannan, I accept that in totality, your comment, but I made

the comment because I was concerned, when Mr Gawne made that amendment. I was reading it here, as he was speaking, that, in fact, the Court was leaving itself open to challenge. I cannot accept that, as your President, and therefore I asked for clarification. That is where we came in.

Mr Quayle, are you prepared to second? 6165 Mr Quayle: Yes, Mr President, I would like to second the amended… the revised amendment

that has been read out by yourself, sir (Laughter) and it is: To add at the end “except insofar as (a) the name of the proposed Department of the Environment shall be changed to 6170 the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture; and notes that (b) the functions of agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation and protection of the countryside as set out in the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure are intended to be transferred to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture.” 6175 With that seconded, Mr President, I would like now to carry on with…


_________________________________________________________________ 1006 T127

The President: Mr Corkish, Hon. Member. Mr Quayle: Sorry, Mr President, I would like to carry on with my – 6180 The President: Oh, you are going to carry on with your speech, right. (Laughter) Mr Quayle. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. First of all, I would like to say, first and foremost, when we have been referring tonight to the 6185

Quayle Report, (Laughter) there are many good recommendations in the original Quayle Report, as it is referred to, and many which cannot actually be accepted by myself. I have to point out, obviously, when people are talking about the Quayle Report, it was in the hands of the Chairman, Robert Quayle, and that Committee that did so much good work in all that they considered.

I think it also needs to be borne in mind that we have actually, as a Government and Tynwald, 6190 approved about half of the recommendations originally referred to in that Report. I do believe that we have a window of opportunity, in terms of going for the Council of Ministers’ Report here tonight, because otherwise it will lead to paralysis of Government, (Mr Cannan: Rubbish!) it will leave a huge amount of uncertainty. Different Members have already referred to the uncertainty amongst staff and the public, and to actually come up with an amendment which says that we 6195 would report back no sooner than July, I think leaves the whole situation of scope and structure of Government in the long grass, until probably after the next general election.

There would be uncertainty amongst… and I am not worried about the Ministers, but I am worried about the chief executives and the staff and the day-to-day running of Government, particularly as we have to face this, as we have been facing the severest economic challenges in 6200 living memory. To think that we can get hung up on that idea that we have the luxury of going off to various committees for further lengthy consultation on something which actually should be a matter for us here in this Court to resolve… Not only would there be the delayed implementation, but in terms of the Government’s business as it carries on through the summer, looking at the capital and revenue programmes ahead of the next Budget. I really do not see why we should 6205 dither, delay and prevaricate, when we have an option to actually do something.

I am disappointed, actually, since the election of 2006, that this Hon. Court has got into a habit of adjourning something, regularly. So often now, we are not making a decision because something is put off: ‘We need to see this adjourned; we need to kick it into the long grass.’ We always need another report; we always need Government to look at it again. I really do think that 6210 time is of the essence in actually tackling some of these massive issues that we need to deal with, and to somehow think we have the luxury to reject them at this stage is just beyond my comprehension.

I would also like to point out, as has been mentioned, we elected a Chief Minister and gave him our mandate on the manifesto, as has been mentioned, that he put forward. This is a Chief 6215 Minister who has been in charge of four ministries. He has been the Speaker of the House of Keys. He has more knowledge, I would suggest, having been involved in those four ministries and I do well remember when the Chief Minister went around the various ministries following his appointment as Chief Minister: not only had he been very well-informed of the ministries that he had been Minister of, but actually he knew a terrific amount of the other ministries that he went 6220 around.

So I do think, in terms of the fact that he has looked at this carefully over the last two or three years, he, more than anybody, has the experience of how Government has been working. It is an unrivalled knowledge of the Departments, how they work together, operate, and how they could become more effective and efficient. Obviously, that is benefited from an input from the Ministers 6225 on the Governance Committee and obviously other Ministers have looked at it as well. It has actually looked very carefully at that huge amount of work done by that previous Committee, chaired by Robert Quayle.

I would like to reiterate, in terms of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry issue, I see agriculture as the backbone of the Island. Its importance is unquestionable and I am 6230 very pleased that there has been an accommodation reached whereby the issue over its status and standing has been recognised, to the extent that we have now proposed this new Department to resolve that.

The Fisheries issue, obviously, has been resolved by the incorporation of ‘Food’ in the title and that, I hope, gives the confidence from all sectors of the agriculture, fisheries and food 6235 manufacturing, to be aware of that.

I also think it is so important to understand that agriculture, not only within its economic contribution via DAFF at present but in terms of its manufacturing output for the Creamery and


_________________________________________________________________ 1007 T127

meats leaving the Island, then that actually, I think the way it has been looked at, sometimes, we have understated the value of agriculture to the Island. So I am pleased that whilst, under these 6240 new arrangements, manufacturing will still go under DTI, then we still do need to remember that other contribution in the manufacturing.

I think, too, in the changes that are proposed, we need to go forward with the confidence from the business community, who are wanting to see change happen. After the Budget yesterday, there was a lunchtime presentation with an opportunity to meet with members of the business 6245 community, and they were very much keen on the creation of a Department of Economic Development. I think they would be horrified, if they are listening out there now, to hear, potentially, that we are going to fail to grasp the nettle to reach out and make an improvement in such a way that the Department of Economic Development will become the engine room of the Manx economy. 6250

I think, as was known yesterday with the Minister for the DTI, there is so much going on in that Department with the shipping, the aircraft, the space sector, manufacturing, construction, retail… I mentioned the manufacturing and the agricultural connection there, too, but there is so much going on in DTI that has been going forward, as is well known, and I think Mr Henderson seemed to be implying that there was not much being done in film or other aspects. There has 6255 actually been significant progress in the DTI in the last three years and I would congratulate the Minister –

Mr Downie: What about the five years before that? (Interjection) 6260 Mr Quayle: – and his team of officers and Members there in what they have done. Mr President, I would also mention we have been talking about procedures tonight, and in fact

it is worth noting that the report in the name of Mr Watterson, I understand, with the other five Members elected in 2006… the status of that actually is one where it is not before Tynwald Court. It actually was circulated by the Member to Members of Tynwald, but as a statutory document, or 6265 whatever you might call it, before this Court, it actually is something which I am sure we are prepared to understand and accept that we are debating it and we are accepting that it is a valid document.

I do think Mr Watterson’s proposals, backed by the other five Members… They have shown extreme caution and you wonder whether or not sometimes they are looking at the cost of 6270 everything and the value of nothing, in terms of making things happen and making improvements. It is always so easy to put things off, to fail to bite the bullet and to actually hold up what should be of benefit to the Island.

I would like to refer to my own Department of Tourism and Leisure, which I joined in August 2008, where, at that time, there was in the region of £800,000 heading for an overspend, and that 6275 was due mainly to £200,000 of fuel for the buses and on extra demands in relation to motorsport. I know the problems in trying to get that budget under control, such that, by the end of March 2009, we did come in under budget by hacking away at various sections of the Department.

All I am mentioning that for, is that the Department of Tourism and Leisure has been going through an enormous period of change and restructuring and I already mentioned to Members 6280 yesterday about the restructuring of public transport. That was actually set in train long before the economic challenge that beset us last October. That was put into place last May, when we had joining us a new Director of Public Transport, so we have been alive to the issues of the challenges we faced. We have been wanting to make things more efficient and effective. That work has been ongoing in my Department, not least because of last October, but ever since I have been involved 6285 in any Department, I have been doing my best to make things more efficient and effective, and I am sure that is what is happening in other Departments, too.

I would also point to the comments from the Watterson Report, if I might call it that, which refers to the buses, where it criticises the bus service because of the operating costs having gone up. I would just like to say, whilst the figures that they quote are accurate, I would point out that, 6290 in 1990, there were 90 drivers and there are now 110. 1999 to the year 2000 was the year, I understand, that bus fares for children travelling to school were reduced to zero and this led to a significant increase in demand and the requirement to provide extra buses and drivers.

Secondly, since 1999-2000, fuel costs have risen 122%. In 2010-11 fuel costs will account for 22% of the £5.8 million net budget. In 1999 fuel costs were just 15% of that net budget, so the 6295 figures that are so easily trotted out by Mr Watterson, actually, you have to dig beneath those figures to understand why they are now increased to what they were before.

I would also like to point out where the group mention in their Report: ‘rearrangement of the working week to working any five days out of seven’. That has already been introduced for the


_________________________________________________________________ 1008 T127

seasonal staff that will be coming on to the electric railways. That has been long overdue and that 6300 has been achieved. So there is so much work ongoing, which the Hon. Member has not been aware of.

Also, in terms of the staff passes and different other number of indefinite passes, as he refers to in the collective Report, then I have to say that, as and when the transport division go for the special equivalent to Oyster cards, then that will be a situation where we can more easily address 6305 the situation relating to any potential abuse of the bus ticketing system.

I would also just refer to the contribution from Mr Henderson, where he talked of staff uncertainty: actually, there will be far more uncertainty created to the staff and to outside this Court if the Council of Ministers’ proposals are not to be accepted. (Mr Henderson: Rubbish.) Well, he says ‘Rubbish’, but I would point out to him that if we kick something into the long grass 6310 for several months, maybe not to happen until after the election, we will have uncertainty amongst all the Departments as to when and where, if anything will happen.

He also mentioned pensions and the need to sort something out – ‘nothing mentioned in the Report’. As he knows quite well, as do other Members of this Hon. Court, the Hymans Robertson Report will be before Tynwald in March, and that is when he and others will be able to make a 6315 decision.

There is reference to the Children’s Committee and the way in which Departments could work together to consider the basis of looking again at this Report and consulting, potentially modifying. All I can say is: fantastic work done on behalf of that Children’s Committee, (Mr Henderson: Yes.) and well done, Mrs Craine, for chairing that, with the other Ministers involved; 6320 but that took a long period of time, effort and work and commitment from the Ministers involved and the staff. That will mean that they are going to be potentially tied up in more commitment in doing that, when many Ministers and officers should be concentrating on the economic challenge that is before us. If we can make a decision for action, rather than procrastination, then we can achieve something for 1st April – something which is achievable. But do not underestimate, Hon. 6325 Members: if you think that it can just be sent off to more committees, to be looked at, then I really do not see anything happening any time soon. So we have to accept, I think, it will be time lost and an opportunity lost.

Mr Henderson also mentioned a quarterly report, and looked to have information provided. In fact, there is already a quarterly report provided, (Interjection by Mr Henderson) which I think 6330 gives an indication of exactly what is happening in the economic indicators affecting throughout Government, and it gives a very good snapshot of how the Government is doing in all its different areas.

I know consultation has been mentioned, but we would wonder how it will affect thousands of people in our community, as Mr Henderson suggested. In fact, it should not affect thousands of 6335 people in our community. All the different sections of the different Departments will carry on pretty much as they are, except that some of them might well be reporting via a new chief executive to a new Minister. So it is not going to cause mass uncertainty to our public. The services should carry on seamlessly, albeit provided by those areas of Government providing the services, potentially located in a different Department. That is the difference. What is of crucial 6340 importance is that, by having a Department of Economic Development, then we can have the synergy of Isle of Man Finance and all the marketing efforts going on in DTI, and added to that would be Tourism. So there would be areas like that – I use that as one example and there are many more – that Government would be able to look at and derive the benefits from by having that particular synergy. He asks the question: ‘We have managed so far. Why rush?’ Well, it is 6345 precisely why we are in the situation we are in, that it is even more vital now than ever before to make the change to create the efficiencies and more effectiveness.

Mr Karran, supports the amendment and also brings one to the Court himself and I have to say that the situation that he suggests, putting it off to the Scrutiny Committee, would not be particularly helpful when we can make a decision here tonight. Again, he asks – if he was in a 6350 seat, he might be able to hear this… but if he is asking himself, too, ‘Why the urgency?’ Well, we heard yesterday why there is urgency for Government to become more efficient and effective and this is one way in which we can achieve that. As he said also about the urgency, has he not realised that the Government has been dealing with the IMF, the Foot Review, the Revenue sharing arrangements, the OECD, the G20, the White List… 6355

That is why you have not had this Report here before now. That is why the Chief Minister, the Treasury Minister and others have been grappling with all those significant issues with their senior staff, and that is why there has not been a report here before now. So why he is saying, ‘Why the urgency?’ The urgency is that the scope and structure should have been here before now, and given more easier circumstances and more time available, it would have been. We dealt with far 6360


_________________________________________________________________ 1009 T127

more important issues at the time, and they have been dealt with, and that is why this Scope and Structure Report answer, really, is here before us tonight.

These are just some of the reasons, Mr President, why I do believe that we should really grasp the nettle now. We have to make a decision, I think tonight, to go forward. Things are in place, subject to Tynwald approval, and the Item on the Order Paper at 13, for us to manage the change 6365 in a realistic, appropriate way, rather than running the risk of putting this off until the next election.

I would just leave Hon. Members with the thought that if you vote for this amendment tonight, in the name of Mr Watterson, then do not be surprised that at the next General Election, people will be asking you all: Why didn’t you take action? Why did you send it off into the long grass? 6370 Why did you not take any action?

Standing order 1.2(2) suspended to complete Items 8 and 13 The President: Hon. Members, it has been drawn to my attention that, under Standing Order

1.2(2) and (3), which reads: ‘(2) The business of the day shall terminate not later than 8 pm. 6375 (3) A suspension of paragraph (2) shall only take place if approved by the vote of at least 22 Members, Tynwald voting as one body.’

I am required to put that to the Court under Standing Orders. Hon. Members, the business of the day shall terminate not later than 8 p.m.. 6380

If we are to continue, Hon. Members, I want you to vote for the suspension so that we can continue. If you do not wish to continue, I want you to vote against. Under your Standing Orders there requires to be at least 22 Members voting for. Hon. Members, I want you to vote for if you wish to sit on; against, if you do not.

6385 Mr Cretney: Could we be more specific, Mr President, in terms of finishing this Item, for

example? The President: Pardon? Sit on to? 6390 Mr Cretney: Sit on to complete this Item, is that what…? The President: Hon. Members, I am perfectly prepared to sit on as long as you like. The difficulty that I face, Hon. Members, is that I know there is at least one further amendment

to come. I had five amendments here on my desk, trying to sort out, and I apologise to the Hon. 6395 Member for Rushen if he thinks he was let down. I am sorry, sir, but trying to sort out the points of order and the four amendments on my desk, it took me a while, whilst you were speaking, to realise that there may be a clash because there are other Departments having changes, as well as the Department of Agriculture, and Mr Attorney confirmed my view. That is why I raised it with you, sir. No disrespect to you, and I apologise if, in fact, you thought you were in order. I would 6400 much rather Tynwald not be open to a challenge; that is why I did it.

Mr Cretney, in response to you, there is at least one more amendment to come to the floor. The Chief Minister: Yes, Mr President, just to help, so we are absolutely clear, I propose we

continue to complete this Item and Item 13, sir. (Members: Hear, hear.) 6405 The President: Tonight? (Members: Yes.) Mr Lowey: Could I ask, Mr President, how many Members of this Court have not spoken yet

and who wish to speak? (The President: No.) 6410 This is a most important thing, that should not be rushed. The President: So far on my list, beside the other amendment, which is to come, there are at

least six Members – Mr Corkish, Mr Butt, Mr Gill, Mr Turner, Mr Lowey and Mr Speaker – all wishing to speak. 6415


_________________________________________________________________ 1010 T127

Mr Callister: And Mr Callister! The President: And Mr Callister and Mrs Christian. 6420 Mr Quirk: Mr Quirk! Mr Crookall: I have got an amendment! The President: Mr Gill. 6425 Mr Gill: Eaghtyrane, notwithstanding that, Standing Orders are absolutely clear. The President: They are, sir. 6430 Mr Gill: It is required to be put to the Court. It is a matter in our hands and we should make

that decision. The President: Exactly, sir, which is exactly where I came in… on your say so, Hon.

Members. 6435 The business of the day shall terminate not later than 8 p.m. A suspension of paragraph (2),

which I have just read to you, should only take place if approved by a vote of at least 22 Members. If you wish to continue sitting, vote for; if you do not, vote against. It requires 22 Members voting for.

When the screen is lit, you may vote… You can vote. 6440

Electronic voting resulted as follows: In the Keys – Ayes 18, Noes 4

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Earnshaw Mr Brown Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mr Cannan Mr Anderson Mr Gill Mrs Craine Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Gawne The Speaker

The President: With 15 for, 4 against in the Keys – In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister The Lord Bishop Mr Crowe Mr Lowey Mr Downie Mrs Christian Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: – and 7 for, 2 against –

Mrs Christian: Eighteen. 6445


_________________________________________________________________ 1011 T127

The President: Eighteen is it… Sorry. Eighteen. Twenty-five voting for, so we continue, Hon. Members.


Debate continued Amended motion carried

The President: Now, in order to get another amendment on the floor… Mr Crookall. Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. 6450 I shall try and be brief. I also have an amendment coming, sir, as you have just said. This could

and should have been done earlier – as in this Report. This has now turned into what we have seen tonight. It has been rushed, we have had confusion and it is not good for parliament, not good for Tynwald, and it should not have happened, sir.

I would just like to say that proof of the confusion is not only what we have seen, but also – I 6455 was not going to use the word ‘U-turn’ – the change by the Chief Minister and his Council in allowing, now, agriculture to be named in the Department. We would not have had that confusion before if we had gone out to consultation. This is the biggest thing to hit Tynwald in 24 years, since the ministerial, departmental set-up was brought in. (Interjection)

As far as the running of Tynwald is concerned, this deserved some sort of consultation. (Mr 6460 Bell: With whom?) Probably just amongst Members, Mr Bell, but they deserved some sort of consultation.

As I have said, we have seen tonight, what sort of confusion, right from the word go, what could happen, what has happened. (Interjection)

I am just waiting to see that my amendment is going out, sir. 6465 The President: Continue, sir. Mr Crookall: Thank you. What we now end up with is the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture. As I said 6470

this morning to the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for the Treasury also mentioned, the niche market. Fisheries is still an important topic. It is still an important employer, it is an important income earner for the Isle of Man, and it still deserves to be within the title of a Department.

My amendment just alters the Minister’s slightly so that it becomes the Department of 6475 Environment, Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. (Two Members: Hooray!) Thank you.

It is important. It is needed – it is just an insertion of a word: To add at the end ‘except in so far as (a) the name of the proposed Department of the Environment shall be changed to the Department of Environment, Fisheries, Food and 6480 Agriculture; and notes that (b) the functions of agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation and protection of the countryside as set out in the Department of Community Culture and Leisure are intended to be transferred to the Department of Environment, Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.’ 6485 There is a lot of taxpayers’ and private money involved in the fishing industry and I firmly

believe that it should be in there, in the title of the Department. I am disappointed in the Minister for not carrying this through, not sticking with it, and not sticking up for the fisheries industry. I know he said it is included in the word ‘Food’ but, as far as I am concerned, and I believe other Members, fisheries should be in there. It has been in there for a long time and it means an awful 6490 lot to the Island, sir.

I believe there is plenty of support for the Chief Minister’s Report, and also for the original Report from 2006. There are some good points that come out of it. The drive for change and efficiencies; the setting-up of the Department of Development; the splitting of the DHSS. Our version of the splitting of the Departments is a bit different from the one the Council of Ministers’ 6495 Report came out with. We included a Department of Corporate Services and, by doing that, we actually managed to bring down the Departments from nine to eight. (Mr Quirk: Hear, hear.) That was a saving. Straightaway you could see there was a saving. The Chief Minister could keep


_________________________________________________________________ 1012 T127

his nine Ministers, (Laughter and interjection) but there was a saving – you could have a Minister without portfolio. We have had one before – Mr Lowey, the Hon. Member, will confirm. 6500

Mr Lowey: It didn’t work. (Laughter) Mr Crookall: Well, in which case you can do away with the Minister. If the Chief Minister

does such a good job, he would not need that extra Minister, and there is a saving to be had. We 6505 are looking at making savings in here, having efficiencies.

As I said, this is the biggest change to Government in 24 years: the way it intends to deliver its service. Surely, on this basis alone, some consultation should have been done between the Members and the senior officers. I know certain senior officers were involved earlier, but not all of them. Certainly, I believe all Members should have been involved in this. We deserve that. We are 6510 all part of Tynwald. I know the Chief Minister, as I said before, has got the mandate to do this, and it looks as though he is determined to carry on through, but I firmly believe that we should have been consulted at least – all Members.

This is not about the diminishing of services or the cutting of staff; it is about delivery of service. It is efficiencies – I keep saying that, and that is what it is all about. That is what the Chief 6515 Minister said, and that is what we should be thinking about.

Going by the Chief Minister’s replies this morning to the Hon. Member, Mr Henderson, the perception is that not all Ministers were fully behind this – either the way it was put together, or the way the Report was done.

6520 A Member: Who said that? Mr Crookall: I am just saying it is a perception. That is what comes across. (Interjections) Mr Lowey: No, it’s not. 6525 Mr Crookall: All I would ask is Members to support my amendment here – it is only a small

change: it inserts the word ‘Fisheries’ into the title of a Department – but also to support Mr Watterson’s amendment. Then what we can do is go forward, we can look at the original Report, the Chief Minister’s Report, our amendment, and then come back and report to Tynwald no later 6530 than July 2010.

Just before I sit down, Mr President, I would like to say… a couple of things that Mr Quayle, the Hon. Member for Middle, said just now. He believed that our Report was too cautious. I believe ours was not too cautious; if anything, it was the other way round. He said ‘urgency to become efficient and effective’. It does not look as though anybody is being urgent and efficient, 6535 by what has gone on here tonight, sir. (Mr Lowey: Absolutely.)

Please, Hon. Members, support my amendment, support Mr Watterson’s amendment, and let us move forward together.

Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. 6540 Mr Cannan: Hear, hear. The President: Mr Corkish. Mr Corkish: Thank you, Mr President. 6545 Mr President, you and this Hon. Court will be delighted to learn that I have no amendment to

proffer. I will be concise, I will keep to the point, and can I just say how privileged I felt to be part of what was happening in the parliamentary procedure a little while ago. I just wish I understood part of it!

I, like other Members, Mr President, of this Hon. Court, have made my feelings known 6550 regarding this issue to the Chief Minister direct, as I have done on other issues. I just point out, too, that there was reference made to a ‘gang of six’, whoever they may be. It may finish up to be a gang of 13 at the end of the night – you never know – but there is no block vote here, as indeed there is no block vote in the Council of Ministers, as the Chief Minister keeps saying, so let’s get that out of the way. Nor am I claiming credit for anything else that has gone on. 6555

I thank the Chief Minister for displaying his flexibility and ability to review his Report and placate the agricultural community, illustrating the value, and I hope the increased value, of this section of our wealth-generating division of Government, and it makes me wonder, again, what other tweaks should be taken or come to light.


_________________________________________________________________ 1013 T127

Mr President, in my Budget remarks I laboured the fact that IOM plc has to change. It has to be 6560 leaner, it has to be keener, but it has to better earn its keep, with everyone pulling together, realising their own responsibilities. To do that, we need to be inclusive and open and work with, not against, our people. The formation of a Department of Economic Development is a must and will be supported 100% by the Members of this Hon. Court. We need to identify and nurture new income streams for the benefit of our Island and its people. 6565

Mr President, I support the amendment in the name of Mr Watterson, to allow a period of internal consultation to allow this wide-ranging and long-reaching change of Departments – the implications, staffing and so on – because that is why I think that time should be taken to absorb such huge change. In this matter, we need everyone’s buy-in and support and, like the agriculture issue with this Item, it is imperative – or certainly important – that this Report and structure will 6570 work as best as is possible, if adopted. As I have said many times within this Court and without, the strength of the Isle of Man – certainly its parliament – is our size. We can talk and we can act quickly and easily; all part of our openness and transparency.

Mr President, I am not here to frustrate Government, but to aid it in those issues on which I can see benefits and, where possible, cost savings in these concerning times. 6575

I would just refer to a Written Answer from yesterday in reply to the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill, asking the Chief Minister to expand on the statement that functions of Government would be lost in the move. The Answer from the Chief Minister:

‘The proposal to re-structure Government is not designed to make public servants redundant. The changes are intended 6580 to improve delivery of public services across a range of functions, to make the public service as efficient and effective as they can be and to bring about better co-ordination of Government services.’ There are lots of good in this proposal, a lot of sense, and the start of a way forward for our

Island, and I fully acknowledge the amount of personal angst and effort that the Chief Minister has 6585 expended on this project. The Chief Minister said earlier this evening, or this afternoon, that we need commitment for this – indeed we do, and in all that we do – but let’s all get on board with a clear understanding and trust. This is serious stuff. I left the school playground many years ago. This is the real world, which affects people. Wholesale change all at once, Mr President, is surely not in everybody’s interest and not the Isle of Man, I think, and far from sitting on a fence, I want 6590 to see a workable, best-as-possible way forward on this important issue, which in its ultimate concept I applaud, as I equally applaud the Chief Minister for bringing it forward, and I look forward to its implementation in its best form.

Thank you, Mr President. 6595 The President: Mr Butt, Hon. Member. Mr Butt: Thank you, Mr President. Can I start by making a couple of points. Firstly, I think, at the root of this debate is an

ideological debate about the 2006 Report, the Scope and Structure of Government. That Report in 6600 2006 was mostly concerned with the scope, with some items on the structure. The scope in lots of cases meant corporatisation or privatisation.

The Chief Minister, at the time of his election and ever since, has quite firmly, in my view, dismissed, not totally dismissed, but been wary of, the scope of government being changed radically, as in this Report. That was his view and I must say it is my view as well. When he came 6605 into office, a new tone was set by his Government, his Council. The Brown plan came out and at the front of the plan, sustainability of the family and social inclusion, a slight twist on what the previous methodology was. This Report has been put on the back burner, but he has used it quite rightly, I think, when he needed to change the structure of government: he has used some of the arguments in this to change the structure and the structure seems to have been driven mostly by the 6610 need to create a Department of Economic Development, because of the situation we are in.

The second point I am going to make, before I move on to that, is the way people, Members of this Court, were consulted. I think there is some underlying dissatisfaction with the fact that people were not consulted about this Report. I found out standing on the touchline at Laxey football pitch on the Saturday before the Sunday delivery. I was told by a member of the public roughly what 6615 was going on. I had no idea. It does not bother me that much, but I can see some Members are quite angry that they have not been consulted in depth about what the proposals were. The Council of Ministers know what was going on and they have done that. So I think, behind this debate, there is the ideological debate about the Report and perhaps some dissatisfaction about lack of consultation. 6620


_________________________________________________________________ 1014 T127

However, the Department of Economic Development seems to have been the prime mover for these changes, and quite rightly so. I would just like to add, I think, that the previous DTI or as it stands now, having worked there for a year, at one stage, have done a lot of good work and they were very active in creating new business and still are. At the same time, so were the Treasury. The Treasury are a very nimble organisation; new ideas, new methods, new schemes all the time. I 6625 suspect in the last year or so, the Treasury have been distracted by all that has gone on around them and all the blows from the UK and perhaps they have not been able to follow exactly what they wanted to do. So, therefore, this Department, working together, is going to be a good idea. But I do think, when the restructure was done, it is quite possible that that was the main focus, and the rest that followed on was like ancillary, almost fuzzy, as to what would happen next. 6630

The debate over where DAFF went is an example of that. Now the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is, to my mind, the area you would put in because it is sustainable. There is nothing more sustainable than those three Divisions: Forestry, Fisheries and Agriculture. You sow the seed and then you reap it. You are sowing your harvest. That is total sustainability and that makes a perfect fit with what it is, currently, that DoLGE is doing: firstly, under Mr Rimington, 6635 who went the green way and then Mr Shimmin, the current Minister, picked up the baton and ran with it. He is looking at renewable energy. He is looking at waste recycling and re-using. He is looking at insulating houses. He is making big strides towards ameliorating the effects of climate change etc. I think the Department of Agriculture fits in perfectly with that Department. It is about sustainability. There used to be a Chief Minister’s Committee called the ‘Sustainability 6640 Committee’ which I am not sure exists any more, but this would replace that.

So I think it is a good move and I think I welcome what has been called a U-turn. I think the Chief Minister has shown he has listened and it just shows the beauty, as Mr Corkish said – Hon. Member for West Douglas – of our parliament, that you can talk to each other and listen to each other. I am sure he has been lobbied by a lot of people, including people within this Court and 6645 members of the public, but he has made the right decision, I believe.

If I could just turn to some specifics, Mr President, about the changes, and these are details which I hope the Chief Minister will take note of and perhaps respond to.

Firstly, I welcome the Department of Social Care being set up. He did, however, say initially that there were three departments who were responsible for safeguarding. He named, Health, he 6650 named DHA and he named Education. I think later he said also Social Care would be a part of that as well, so that makes four departments. Can I just have confirmation of that?

Again, in terms of Social Care, seven or eight years ago, Mental Health Services were separated from the Health Service and transferred into Social Services. That caused lots of problems with people’s gradings, people’s wages, people’s terms and conditions. People who were 6655 nurses then became administrators, etc. A lot of turmoil in that process, which gradually, over the years, worked itself out. Mental Health Services now are very much out in the community. The old Ballamona is gone. They are in the community and they are accessed by social workers at all times.

We have children with mental health problems who access CAMHS, the Children and 6660 Adolescents Mental Health Service; most are referred by social workers. We have all the people who have got memory problems and dementia etc, who are referred to the memory clinic. Again, most of those come from social workers, care workers etc. I think it would be a backward step to send Mental Health Services – because the word ‘health’ is in the title – back to Health Services at this time. 6665

Most of the referrals come from Social Services and social carers; of course some still come from the Health Service, as well. It will have to be a joint exercise, but I think it should stay where it is, partly because of the terms and conditions of pay etc, that would be a problem.

On the same theme, having had discussions with Whitley Council about some elements of this, another example is the Water Authority mixing with sewage. We have people in two different 6670 Departments on different Whitley Council rates, who are going to be working alongside each other and that will cause lots of problems and needs to be dealt with very strongly. These are just small examples of the glitches that will occur in the future with this restructure. I hope the Chief Minister is flexible enough to realise that he may need to change tack a little bit in some of these areas and I hope he will take that into account. 6675

If I could just turn to the amendments now, and I think we have two shows in town; somebody said we only have one. We have the Chief Minister’s motion and we have the amendment by Mr Watterson: I think these are the two main shows in town. I would like, firstly, to say, what is the purpose of Government? Why does Government exist? It only exists for one reason, to take money off the people to provide services that they, jointly, cannot do themselves. In fact, if Government 6680 did not exist, we would all have to live by the nearest water hole to get fresh water and the nearest


_________________________________________________________________ 1015 T127

bit of wood to keep ourselves warm. We would have to have our own education, our own health, our own power station; it just does not work that way. Government exists to make sure we provide the services for everybody.

Our Government provides services for everybody; the essential services are provided, the heat, 6685 the power, the light, the food, the security, the health and the education. But we also provide more. What makes the Isle of Man such a good place to live? What makes the Isle of Man a good place to live, apart from the Health Service, which is very good, as we discussed earlier today and apart from the education system, which is one of the best in the British Isles. It sounds like, ‘What did the Romans ever do for us?’ here, but we also provide better benefits for people than they do in the 6690 adjoining jurisdictions. We provide much better infrastructure than most other places have but, in addition, we provide great natural heritage sites, we provide a bus service that goes to all the far corners of the Island to help everybody. We provide a fairly full network of post offices, we provide vintage buses and trams, which would have gone, had they been in private ownership. We provide the NSC, a sports centre which is a wonderful place to work in and to attend. We also 6695 provide the Villa Marina, which is a fantastic complex. We provide the Gaiety Theatre, one of the best theatres in the British Isles. They are all paid for by the Government. Those are the things that make living in the Isle of Man that extra bit special. People who come here and see all those things are envious of what we have here. We provide those. We do not need to provide those things. They are not essential services. They are the things that make life better over here – and long may 6700 they do so.

The amendment of Mr Watterson: unfortunately, I support in principle the idea that this should be adjourned, so it can be further discussed, but the amendment that he sent to us did come with a document, called ‘Alternative Proposal’. In that, for example – I will speak about something of which I now know – he talks about the National Sports Centre. He says ‘already operating 6705 successfully’ – which is true –

‘Staff are employed on Whitley Council wage scales, which are getting higher than many private sector equivalents.’

The Report says: 6710 ‘Service level agreements could be used to ensure availability to certain groups in accordance with the Sports Strategy.’ If I could just highlight what is done for people in the Isle of Man at the National Sports 6715

Centre, which no private entrepreneur would pick up. They provide extra special tuition for children who are in care – children who cannot mix with other children very easily. They provide a disability officer, to provide disability sport, which the private sector would never do – no matter what the terms and conditions say. They target schools, where the education levels are not quite so high, and where there is a low attendance at sporting functions. They have proved, from their 6720 research – this is our NSC – that people who attend those schools have higher levels of spelling and reading quotients than the ones that do not attend the NSC. They do that sort of work. They have weight reduction courses for children. They target children of families who are on Family Income Support, and they bring them in and give them reduced rates during the school holidays.

They provide, through the Sports Council and Sports Aid, training for a lot of the coaches and 6725 hundreds of volunteers. Private enterprise will not do that. They will just provide a sports centre, full stop. We have coaches and volunteers over here who are training our athletes and our young people to high, high levels. We saw Zoe Gillings last night on television and the Isle of Man was mentioned about six times. Mark Cavendish, Zoe, Peter Kennaugh and people raise the profile of the Isle of Man. There is also a facility in the NSC now for the élite athletes – special training 6730 premises, gyms etc – to bring the new people through, the young people through, and it is something we can be proud of. None of this would exist if this was privatised.

In the report submitted by Mr Watterson and his colleagues, it says there is a current deficiency of £3.1 million. I know it is not that. This is a figure from last year. It is much lower than that. But he uses the word ‘deficiency’. As far as I know, the NSC or the Villa or the Gaiety have never 6735 gone over budget. They are not there to make a profit, in my opinion; they are there to provide a service for the people. Using the word ‘deficiency’ indicates that they are overspending. They are not, and I can say now that there are going to be increases in charges: there have to be, because of the way things are moving. The deficiency, such as it is, will be going down every year.

I come to the Villa Marina and the Gaiety. In the report – again, it came with that amendment – 6740 it said the current deficiency is £2.9 million… in fact, for this year the deficiency will be something like between £1.3 million and £1.4 million. It means it is not making a profit to that


_________________________________________________________________ 1016 T127

extent. There is mention made of Whitley Council rates. Yes, Whitley Council rates are paid at the Villa Marina, at the Gaiety and to some of the staff at the sports centre. I have made some enquiries about what actual extra cost does that put on the cost of running the Villa Marina, and 6745 because we pay Whitley Council rates it costs £100,000 extra per year, so the current deficiency of £1.3 million or £1.4 million would be £1.2 million or £1.3 million. I do not think a private enterprise is going to take on a business which is going to lose them a million pounds; it is not likely.

In respect of the Villa and the Gaiety – and I am new to the Department, I must admit – I have 6750 looked at the shows they put on. Most of the shows that go on at the Gaiety and the Villa are private hire, they are at no risk to the Government, and most of them in recent months, or recent years, have been sold out. The promoters who put them on make a profit and bring over good acts. We have seen some fantastic acts over here in the last two or three years. The Department also puts on shows, and most of those also make a profit. They are getting big names over. 6755 Occasionally, though, they put on a show which will not make a profit. There is a drama group coming over in the next week called ‘Men at Work’. It is proper drama, drama which we do not often get here. That will probably make a loss, but we do need these things. We do not want to become a cultural desert.

I think the Minister for Treasury, Mr Bell, often talks about the chairman’s wife. People will 6760 not come here if there are not those sort of things to listen to and to become involved in. We have got a lovely theatre; we should use it. If the Gaiety was privatised, I suspect, apart from the choral shows etc, it would probably be dark much of the time.

Also in the Villa Marina – just a couple of points I have picked up from my discussions – we would probably have no ballroom dancing for older people. We would probably have no brass 6765 band concerts. We would not have the under-18s disco, because what money is to be made in that for a private entrepreneur?

I think the amendment to bring this Report back, or to come back in six months’ time, or by July, is an attempt to resurrect this Report again. The scope of Government has been, in effect, dismissed by the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers. All the amendment does is say, 6770 ‘Let’s look at this again; let’s look at the scope of Government again.’ I think, as long as this Government is in power, it is really a waste of time.

Just one further thing on the Villa, just some other facts, there is a conference – the CAMRA conference – coming soon. It is estimated that that will bring in to the Isle of Man £600,000 in spend. Following that, the British Legion will come and a similar amount will be brought in – 6775 another £600,000. That is £1.2 million. That covers the loss of the Gaiety. It covers it straight away.

The hidden costs are there, the hidden benefits are there but, for the good of the people, the Villa Marina, the Gaiety, the NSC, they are just three things that are mentioned in the report accompanying the amendment. I really think this is just an attempt to get back to resurrect the 6780 scope of Government. It is about ideology – do you want to privatise, or do you not? I think the Isle of Man Government, because we have been able to afford to, provides a lot of things for our people that other places cannot do. If you can still carry on with it, to some extent, you should do so.

I was very doubtful about which way to go with this, Mr President. I think, having heard 6785 people outside this Court, concerned about where we are going as a Government, they are very annoyed about the health agreement, the VAT arrangements. Government are getting the blame for some of it, unfortunately. I really do think, maybe, the timing of this is wrong. The timing is not good. If the Council of Ministers and Mr Teare, the Health Minister, could get out quickly some details about the safety net for the Reciprocal Health Agreement, as quickly as possible, that 6790 would take a lot of sting out of the situation we are now in.

I think the people out there now are looking for leadership. They think nothing is happening, and I think now is the time for the Chief Minister to follow this through, take the leadership. Even though we have not been consulted personally, I would make sure it does happen.

Thank you. 6795 The President: Mr Gill, Hon. Member for Rushen. Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. First of all, can I begin by stating what I said before and that is, I support, and I believe we 6800

need, a Government that can govern. That is fundamental for the reasons the previous speaker and others have said and also the principle that I think most people and I certainly am behind, that the Chief Minister has crystallised, about the need for a team to be responsible for economic


_________________________________________________________________ 1017 T127

development. That is not new. I have been questioning the Treasury’s fitness for modern-day purpose for some months, and in other spheres, and the Chief Minister will know that. 6805

Does that mean that it has to be a new Department? Does that mean that there has to be a domino effect and every Department, almost, has to be changed? I am not so sure. But I would say that the structure of Government is primarily a matter for the Chief Minister and his Ministers. The DAFF Minister earlier gave us a very clear example, which I do commend him for, about how he, as the Minister, his Chief Executive and his team in DAFF, had made various structural internal 6810 rearrangements with consequential savings, and that is entirely right.

Government can govern. They can make decisions. But, is this a Government initiative? We were told today it is a Council of Ministers’ decision. Was it a unanimous Council of… It is a Council of Ministers’ decision. Was it a majority decision? It is a Council of Ministers’ decision?

I think if we look at Question 39 Written Paper today, in which I asked the Chief Minister: 6815 ‘How many times has the Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee met to discuss the Review of the Scope and Structure of the Isle of Man Government since the last General Election and on what dates?’

And there are five dates to consider here. The first one is 4th October 2007, so the new 6820 Government was well into its flow by then. Just one week later, they met again. Then, three weeks later, they met for a third time. Then there was a delay of nine weeks to January 2008, when they met for the fourth time, and then there was a delay, according to my maths – which is not infallible – of what I worked out as 737 days, or 105 weeks, or two years and one week, and that was in January this year. 6825

The next significant date, which is not in the Answer but we know from other information, is that the Report was printed on 30th January. So the in-depth review of Government, at best by the non Governance Committee Members, is of less than a fortnight, and it will not be that long because there would be a time lapse between the next Council of Ministers’ meeting, which would eat up a few days, and then the following Council of Ministers’ sitting. I appreciate the Council 6830 have been meeting out of their normal sequence, as well, for a period, and I also fully respect that Minister Bell, who is on the Governance Committee, has absolutely been under unprecedented pressure and other commitments and perhaps it would have been more helpful to have asked which Ministers actually attended which of those meetings, but I did not. In a way, that is academic. We are told it is a Council of Ministers supported initiative. I know that not every 6835 Minister actually does support it privately, but that is a matter for Ministers to act according to their conscience, not for me to corner them.

I voted for the Chief Minister, I vote for him to be a leader. I voted on the basis that I would not agree with everything he would do and say and think and the way he would act, and I have no doubt that he does not agree with everything I do, say, think, feel and act, and I respect him no less 6840 for that. Where, however, structural matters come before Tynwald and we have to vote on the legislation to effect those structural changes, then I think the challenge is different. The challenge then is to convince us, as a parliament, that Government are right, not only in what they are doing but why they are doing it, how they are doing it, the timescale they are doing it in, and I would like to ask the Chief Minister to just reflect on a couple of points. 6845

First of all, if I could begin with a very short story from when I was 17: I had just passed out of training in the Royal Navy and we were asked – all of us were asked – where would we like to go and what job would we like to do. I said I would very much like to go to Scotland and I would like to be based in any Scottish-based submarine. The Royal Navy wrote that down and looked very serious about it, and my draft came through a few weeks later and I was sent to Devonport in 6850 Plymouth on an anti-submarine frigate.

A Member: That’s another submarine! Mr Gill: The lesson I learned, at an early age, was you can ask, but that does not mean you 6855

will always get, but – and I will come back to that – even as our Chief Petty Officer in training described us as being ‘below plankton in the scale of marine life’, even given that lowly rate, literally, in the Royal Navy, we were treated with the respect, the courtesy, of being asked for our view. I have to say the Navy… I had a standard letter that said: ‘We know you did not go where you wanted to go. If we need somebody in your job to go to Scotland in the submarine service, 6860 you are on the list,’ and, at the end of the day, I will go where I am sent. I can live with that.

Fast forward more years than I care to reflect upon, and in May of last year, most Members – not Mr Karran and not the Speaker, of course, but most Members – who are Members of Government Departments received a letter saying that the Council of Ministers had considered our


_________________________________________________________________ 1018 T127

roles and, as of yesterday, we were moved: (Mr Gill clicked his fingers) like that! No discussion, 6865 no ‘Would you like to go here?’ and, at the end of the day, the Chief Minister could have had that discussion. For all I know, he could have thrown the paper straight in the bin – I would be none the wiser – but at least I would have thought the courtesy had been extended to me and other Members. We are supposed to be Hon. Members, when it suits. I felt we were treated quite shoddily and dishonourably. I have made that point to the Chief Minister and he was kind enough 6870 to hear my views.

Just six months or so later, not only do I feel very much in the dark, but I can say, Eaghtyrane, that lots of civil servants feel very much in the dark. They feel very uncertain. I know of one occasion where a Minister has been left in no uncertainty about how certain staff members in that Department felt about the actions. I dare say not every Minister has had that, but I know one 6875 certainly has, and that is a great shame because that does nothing for anybody. All it does is foster uncertainty. It fosters a sentiment of ill will and feeling ill used, and where there is a previous history I would have hoped that that would be more avoidable. You cannot consult on everything all the time. As Minister Quayle said, sooner or later you have to make decisions. I do not think he made a convincing case that this was the sooner or later point, but I am open-minded to consider 6880 that as this debate goes on, and particularly when the Chief Minister sums up.

All I would say, Eaghtyrane – and I would say it constructively – is that leadership, as far as I understand, is about taking people with you, and a lot of people and a lot of Members in this Court…

Well, again, if I can give you another short Naval story – I do not mean to sound like Uncle 6885 Albert on Only Fools and Horses here! – a friend of mine went on his two-week leadership course, which you had to do to become a leading hand. Interestingly, only men sailors had to go on this; women were assumed to already have all these skills of how to take control of groups and give clear orders. So, anyway, he went on this two-week course. He was sent back on the second day with the classic line: ‘people would only follow this man out of curiosity’. 6890

Unless we hear a little bit more about what the benefits are, what the cost savings are and what the risks are – a little bit more detail – I think we are being asked to follow out of a morbid curiosity. That is not the basis to make such a fundamental and wide-ranging discussion.

I do not want to say any more, to say whether I am for or against. My instinct is to say, ‘Convince me.’ So I am open to be convinced and I have said before, if I meet an Eskimo looking 6895 to buy some ice, I would send him to the Chief Minister. I am not saying this is a ‘selling ice to Eskimos’ challenge, but it certainly is a ‘Go on, then – prove it’s a good idea’, before we make the fundamental, wide-ranging and, we all know, costly one way or another – whether we will get that money back in subsequent savings, we do not know – and uncertain changes that we are being asked to… If we are being asked to do that, convince me, please, convince others. You will not 6900 convince everybody, but that is the challenge if the Council of Ministers are to actually move forward with this.

Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The President: Hon. Member, Mr Turner. 6905 Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. I think my contribution will be slightly less interesting than the one we have just heard from

Mr Gill. Nevertheless, I would like to say that I think Mr Butt has, for me, teased out some of the points: that is that the original Report, the Quayle Report, focused very much on the scope, when 6910 the proposals before us are very much on the structure, and had they been on the scope then they would have widespread effects.

Mr Butt talked about privatisation and I am someone who is very much in favour of privatisation. However, with regard to some of the services that we offer, there is no way that privatisation of those services would result in the sustainability of their services. For example, he 6915 mentioned the NSC and I agree with all the reasons he mentioned and I do not propose to go over those again – I did have some of them in my notes. I will try and edit on the fly here, Mr President – but also strategic assets, such as the airports, the ports, the Manx Electricity Authority and the Water Authority also are utilities that very much should remain in public ownership. I would say, though, that regardless of whether the proposed structure goes through or not, I think it is essential 6920 that the individual divisions in each of those Departments look at ways where savings can be made and possibly some elements of those, thought is given to contracting out certain elements and maybe buying those services in from the private sector, where appropriate. I do not intend to start going into each of those now at this hour, but I am sure that once we have a clear steer on where


_________________________________________________________________ 1019 T127

the Departments are going, then that is a job for each of the individual divisions to go through and 6925 identify.

Some of those functions that may be contracted out, it would probably take great courage to bring those forward. Some of them may face fierce opposition, but I think that there will be long-term benefits in doing that. The structure itself, when this Report was delivered to my house on Sunday afternoon, I was, like a few colleagues, expecting it – the creation of the Department of 6930 Economic Development. What I had not guessed was that there was going to be the complete re-arranging of the structures, so that did come as a surprise and the structure looked completely alien and I thought how can this possibly work but, as time has gone on, I have revisited the Report and I have looked at the individual elements that are in here and the great majority of them, I feel, make a lot of sense. It is just because we are used to the current system, I think, a lot of these seem 6935 a little bit alien at first.

One of the main concerns, having just joined DAFF, was the fact that it was going to be merged into the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure. We have addressed that and we have the alternative proposals on the table, which I fully support. I think that the new version of the Department of Environment with the added functions of DAFF will actually result in a 6940 stronger Department for those industries than even the current Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, so I certainly welcome those changes. A view is that it has left, in my view, a rather weak Department of Culture, Community and Leisure, but we could tinker around the edges all night, which is not what I am going to do and, to me, the fact that I consider that a weaker Department is not giving me grounds to vote against the whole thing. 6945

The Department of Economic Development, I fully support that, as most Members do and I think that the creation of that Department is going to give a great opportunity for advancing some areas, which I think need a higher priority. We have been lagging behind, for example, the policy on offshore minerals, the development of income from, possibly offshore wind generation. These are all things that are going on around us and yet we seem to be lagging behind. I think a new 6950 Department will be able to have the extra resources there, with the strengths of the people coming in from Treasury to enable those in areas to go forward. I think that will certainly be a great benefit to this new Department.

I also note that the Careers Service is to transfer into the new Department of Economic Development, and as the Minister for Trade and Industry will be aware, this was something I was 6955 campaigning for during my time at DTI. I always felt there should be a stronger synergy between the Careers Service and the Job Centre. The Careers Service was operating in the Department of Education, and there was no real conduit between the two. I think the fact that that will be moving into… I know the Job Centre is not listed in the graph, but it is only a snapshot. I think that is going to have real benefit for people who are coming out of education, looking at careers and then 6960 going through the system to the Job Centre; and also for people who may be considering changing, there would be a coherent approach to that, so that has real benefits, as well. That is something that was being held quite important during my time at the DTI, especially as we had that sector that were not in education, employment and training, as the Treasury Minister mentioned in his Budget speech, I think it was. 6965

Transfer of functions for the drainage department into Water, I think can only be a good thing. That is another example of where the current system is a little bit odd. Who would think that the Department of Transport, dealing with highways and airports, deals with sewerage? So I think it is absolutely right that the Water Authority are given that role, and deal with that network.

There are a lot of other benefits in the revised structure. One of the problems that we were 6970 facing at the Department of Transport was the situation of when the DHPP was broken up, a certain element of that went to the new functions of DoLGE, but a lot of the work that was being done for the properties was being carried out by a section of the DHPP which remained in the Department of Transport. The budgets also went and we were left with the workforce. There was no real onus to utilise the staff who were left in the DoT for DoLGE. So, I noticed that a lot of 6975 those functions that were in the DHPP are now coming back to the proposed Department of Infrastructure. That will result, I think in a stronger strategy for the workforce and those Divisions.

There was a proposal in the original Report to possibly corporatise or privatise some areas of the Department of Transport. I think it is a nice idea to say we will get rid of the Works Division and privatise that but, in reality, there are certain sections of the private sector that say, ‘We could 6980 do that work,’ but I think history has shown that, certainly again in a small place such as the Island, those skills would, maybe, not be available all the time, so I think it is important that we retain those areas, and with the added responsibility of the properties and estates, then there will probably be even more work. But again, there is scope there that, as people leave in certain posts that are available in the private sector, those divisions could contract out certain work – for 6985


_________________________________________________________________ 1020 T127

example, plumbers, decorators and so forth. There is a vast amount of that available in the private sector, and as people leave, then those posts would not be replaced and eventually that work would be given out to the private sector. It would reduce the wage bill for Government and the pension liability, and that would be new work going to the private sector.

What is not clear from the proposals is that we do have a number of works divisions in the 6990 various Departments – we have the Department of Transport, the Department of Education, the DHSS, and possibly DoLGE somebody said – and I think there may be further scope to go a step further and bring some of those together. I know Education are currently talking with DoT to share workshop facilities. It does not make sense to have all of these individual divisions, all with their own facilities, when you could have centralised workshops and so forth. So although it is not clear 6995 quite what is going to happen to some of those divisions, I would hope that, as time goes on and things settle down, we could look at bringing some of those divisions together and see if there are any savings to be had.

One thing I was surprised at is that we did not look at the opportunity to merge the FSC and the IPA. I know that is something… the Treasury Minister said there was an appetite to do that. 7000 Maybe, as it would require changes in the primary legislation, it was decided this was not the time to do it.

The Chief Minister: It is ongoing. 7005 Mr Turner: It is ongoing, but I would hope that is still on the cards. It may be seen as a

missed opportunity, but there may be… As the Chief Minister has just commented, it is ongoing so, hopefully, that will still come through.

I have mentioned that I support the retention of certain utilities in public ownership. We have got the future roll out of the gas network. My views are quite well known, that I think, if there is 7010 an opportunity to bring that utility into public ownership, possibly under the Manx Electricity Authority, given the investment, then I think that should be pursued.

Is there ever a good time for change? There are always a million reasons why now is not the right time to change things, but I think that this might be the right time to move forward and change things, and I will be supporting the new structure. 7015

The President: Hon. Members, now that we have settled down in Court to debate, perhaps I

could remind you that it would be helpful if we try not to be repetitive. Mr Lowey. 7020 Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I do not know how you cannot be repetitive in a debate like this. We are talking about the

scope of Government, the restructuring of Government. I suppose in this Court there could be as many as 33 different views on how we could develop Government. Governments are here to govern and my Chief Minister – because I voted for him, too – and he has my support. I was not 7025 here for the meeting which he called for the membership, but he found time to see me privately, like he will always do for Members. If you want to see him, he is available and we talked this thing through.

He and I go back a long way. We were both disciples of the change in the ministerial government. That came out of a Select Committee of this Court to demolish the growth of the 7030 Local Government Board at that time. It was growing too big and there was a Select Committee set up to do that. By the way, it finished up, we changed the whole of Government and let the Local Government Board grow even bigger, but there you are! Not for the first time, Government’s aims… but we were there, so I embrace change. I am not against these changes.

Who is to say the Chief Minister is wrong in these proposals? Who is to say Mr Watterson’s 7035 proposals are not right? I am equally at home with both, because there is not an awful lot of difference between them. Having said that, again like my friend, Mr Butt and my friend from West Douglas, those are the two Members that struck a resonance with me.

The thing that has surprised me, somewhat, has been the speed. The speed of the decision by the Council of Ministers was almost over a weekend. They had it on Thursday, it was decided on 7040 Sunday that we should get it, a decision was made, they had their papers a week, we then got it on Sunday to make a decision here now. I find that quite – talk about your foot on the speedo, that is speed!

I do not think we make our best decisions under duress or under speed. The Council of Ministers’ timescale, I think, was short and that has been explained quite graphically tonight, 7045 where two Ministers have already… let us get this timescale right. The Report was accepted by the


_________________________________________________________________ 1021 T127

Council of Ministers from the Select Committee chaired by the Chief Minister, the Governance Committee. It went to the Council of Ministers and they agreed it. Now it has come into the forum and, after discussion, I too, like my friend, Mr Butt, do not take it as a sign of weakness when you listen to arguments and you change. It is a fool who never changes and I commend the Minister 7050 and the Council – if they think it is right, they move. I have to ask myself why weren’t the Ministers who were representing their… vocal in their discussions round the table? They could have changed it there, but they did not; but after pressure external, they decided to change. This is a Government motion on the Paper and I have got two Ministers – a proposer and a seconder – altering a proposal for the second time. This is not good parliamentary practice. I think you would 7055 agree it is not good parliamentary practice, and we have not been shown in a very good light tonight, in my view.

Can I just say – and remind the Chief Minister, because he was here – when we amalgamated the electricity undertaking of Douglas and the Manx Electricity Authority, a big row in this Court to get the amalgamation was that we had to phase in the charges for Douglas over an eight-year 7060 period, and we agreed around this Court in the debate that we would agree a phasing-in period. So we passed that Order, as written, with the understanding and the promise that we would phase it in for the Douglas payers. We were then told, ‘But you passed a bit of legislation, and that is the law; not what was said in this Court.’ So there you have it: it is not what is promised or said in this Court that is important; it is actually the piece of legislation that is before you – 7065

A Member: I tried to tell you. Mr Lowey: – and I therefore, really… There is a classic. We had, by the way, to change

primary legislation to get the wishes of the Court transposed. That is acting on the hoof. I do think 7070 that the amendment of the Minister tonight was a clear reaction to what was going on in the Court. It is creating legislation on the hoof and that is not good parliamentary practice. So therefore proper consideration has not been given to this, in my view.

On the next Item, which again, with the Chief Minister’s support, we will want to approve tonight, if we pass the first one, the Regulations. Hon. Members, we are supposed to look at these 7075 Regulations. I was given these – I found these on my desk when I came back from our afternoon break, so I have not had very much time to go through all these Regulations that are going to transfer powers over to the new bodies. Again, that is not good parliamentary practice. We are flying blind. Apart from the Council of Ministers, who I presume have read these Orders, which Member of Tynwald has had an opportunity, from teatime, to read those Orders and to cross-7080 reference the legislation which is affected? Not many of us, and therefore, I have to say to you, it is not good parliamentary practice. Really we should be very, very careful when we are making these decisions.

Can I come to the nub of it: really, at the end of the day, good governance is about getting the structures right and making it work. We, as politicians, are at the top of the tree. We make the 7085 policy and it is carried out by the officials. My feeling, from what I get from the officials that I have come in contact with – and I am limited, because I am only on a couple of Departments – one Department and a Statutory Board – I find that somehow they are aghast. They do not know what is happening. These are the very people who are going to have to drive it. I am not just talking about the very top layer of management; I am talking about the people who make the machine 7090 work – the managers below them and the managers below them. They are feeling exposed. It may be a challenge to them. It may be very much that they will have… I spoke with the Chief Minister and said, ‘To make this work, you will need an enforcer.’ You will need an enforcer, and I do not see this here in the make-up that I have got and the time that I have had to discuss it.

I will say this for the Chief Minister: he is fully entitled to bring these forward. He is fully 7095 entitled to persuade his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to say ‘This is our policy,’ and he has got that support, but then he has come to parliament to find out does it meet with our support. The biggest difference between… When the Chief Minister spoke this afternoon, I am totally with him and his… I, too, was against privatisation, and I make no bones about that. I made no bones about it when the Report came in. I make no bones about it. One of the reasons I voted for Mr 7100 Brown was because he was of a like persuasion, so there is nothing between us there. I do believe we need an Economic Affairs Department that can drive all those arguments 100% with the Chief Minister. The difference between what I see… and I do not agree with my hon. friend, Mr Butt, when he says that the amendment is going to revisit everything at a stroke. I just do not follow that; I really do not. I understand that the paper that was given to us before the amendment points 7105 out various things. I do not accept them any more than I accepted them in the first place when they


_________________________________________________________________ 1022 T127

were written by the original authors, but I do think it gives us one magical plus which the Chief Minister’s does not, and that is a time to consider.

When I talk about consultation, I do not mean general consultation with the Isle of Man. Hon. Minister Quayle, Member for Middle, said that we would go back to square one and we would 7110 have to talk to everybody. No, we do not. My idea of consultation is consulting those who are going to make this happen, and it is not in… The Chief Minister and his Ministers say, ‘This will happen, and it will happen.’ No, it will not. You do not need to be a fan of Yes, Minister to know exactly what will happen, from the top down, I may say. If it suits, it will happen; and if it does not suit, we will make haste very slowly. Tonight in this Court I regret to say I think we are making 7115 haste too fast, and I do think a bit of time for reflection would not go amiss, and that is the plus and why I will be supporting the amendment on this occasion, because I do think we need a bit of time to reflect, not on the structure as such, but is it working, is it right, can we achieve it?

The first thing that will happen, if failure should happen, is that we will be condemned for rushing it, and then we have got no defence for that – no defence. It is not a question of getting it 7120 in time; it is a question of getting it right. I would suggest a little bit of time of reflection would not go amiss. That is why I will be supporting the amendment.

The President: Mr Speaker. 7125 The Speaker: Mr President, like many others, it was with puzzlement that, on Sunday, 31st

January, I received at my door, a brown envelope of documents by special delivery and I immediately wondered what emergency had descended on the Island that required a sudden delivery of documents. I was surprised to open them and find that it was the response to the Report that had been issued three years previously, for which we had been waiting since the start of the 7130 new Tynwald, after the General Election up to three years previously.

I read the Report and the case that was being made for bringing that Council of Ministers response to February Tynwald for decision two weeks later, with a view to implementing, getting the whole show on the road from 1st April and I have to say, Mr President, I am still puzzled as to why the rush? 7135

I am very puzzled why we require a special delivery to ensure papers for consideration for February Tynwald and I am afraid I am none the wiser why this measure has to go through so quickly. I would have expected a Report and proposal advocating such major change – and it is major change, whatever is said about it only being an internal matter – I think for the Island, it is a major change, the biggest change in 25 years. I would have expected that, having been considered 7140 by the governance committee and gone to the Council of Ministers for political approval, for amendment, then, being such a big issue to have been then put into the public domain for some wider consultation. Why would I think that, having read this document? Because, Mr President, a mere three weeks previously, the Chief Minister had referred to the issue in the Isle of Man Examiner, in a New Year message, when saying about the fundamental questions about the 7145 structure, role and size of Government,

‘… such a radical review will need to be informed by discussion and debate across the Island, involving Members of Tynwald, Government staff, the business community, the voluntary sector, the general public and other stakeholders.’ 7150 So I wondered if I had missed something in the previous three weeks. Perhaps the review had

not been as comprehensive as that, and, perhaps, as one who is not in executive Government, in which respect I am like the Hon. Member, Mr Karran – he is not the only one – I wondered, perhaps, if I had missed some internal governmental consultation, not being on a Government Department. 7155

To my astonishment, having assumed that other Members of Tynwald had had wind of major changes in their own Department, I was quite surprised, the following day, to be told that this proposal had come as much as a surprise to them as it had to me. There was something in the wind, evidently, about a Department of Economic Development – I think a long-standing aspiration over which there is considerable consensus. I am the first to acknowledge that and I 7160 actually support that. But the lack of consultation or a considered way for this to be put into the public domain, with evidently no intention to consult…

At Question Time this morning, the Chief Minister made it clear that, in agreeing, yes, there was a need for Island-wide debate and discussion, this would actually follow the decision by Tynwald. Well, I am not sure why the debate follows a fait accompli, because doing things in a 7165 rush and then consulting, you are liable to get things wrong. I have to say that, when there was a week or 10 days – I do not call it consultation, but engagement – either by, or with, the agricultural


_________________________________________________________________ 1023 T127

sector, the farming community, if that period of engagement or consultation had so quickly resulted in a change of direction – a radical change of direction to what was proposed, and we spent some time arguing about that procedurally earlier – then the question arises: what other 7170 changes might arise if there was further consultation? There may be none; there may be several. The Hon. Member, Mr Butt, made reference to adult mental health services, which now sit as a community-based service in the Social Services part of the DHSS. I must confess I had not spotted that one, and there may be others of that ilk that would benefit from consultation by the stakeholders, staff and everyone concerned. 7175

In the space of a week or 10 days, we had this major change, as far as where agriculture should sit. We were told in the House of Keys by the Chief Minister last week… When asked by a number of Hon. Members about this matter, he said, is Agriculture:

‘… a department that should be in the Department of Environment? No, it should not, because there might be 7180 conflicting interests between the Department of Environment on one side and the industry on the other side and we already have concerns about that in certain aspects of what goes on.’ He was further pressed on the matter, and again said he believed it would not be in the best

interest for Agriculture to be put into a Department of the Environment: 7185 ‘… because of the remit of that Department… would clearly conflict with the needs of the agricultural industry in working the countryside to the best benefit of the people of the Isle of Man and if he had the same Minister overseeing agriculture, as well as protecting the environment, there would be major conflicts in the future.’ 7190 I have to ask: what has changed within the last week? The Chief Minister: I know more now than I did. The Speaker: Let me put it this way: how has the conflict of interest that was identified last 7195

week been resolved? The Chief Minister: I have found more out, which resulted in the decision. The Speaker: I ask that genuinely. How has that conflict been resolved? 7200 Mr President, the Chief Minister, as has been said, when he stood as Chief Minister, made his

position clear, in terms of being not an enthusiastic supporter of the notion of reducing the scope of Government. What is before us is no surprise and I respect what has come forward. It is absolutely in tune with the Chief Minister’s political philosophy and I have no difficulty with that and I support much of this proposal. 7205

Like other candidates for the post of Chief Minister, I did state that I was in favour of restructuring Departments in the interests of greater efficiency, co-ordination and effectiveness, in particular to consider the recommendations in the Quayle Report for the creation of a Department of Economic Development, absorbing elements of DTI, Tourism and Treasury, reducing the size of DHSS and strengthening agriculture as a strategic industry, aligned with countryside 7210 management. I also made the point of advocating retaining overall Government responsibility for the effective delivery of essential public services, but to examine all alternative methods of delivery, which offer the prospect of greater cost-effectiveness, without compromising quality or standards to the public, which is simply another way of saying there is some merit in looking at the scope of Government and the way we deliver services. 7215

I take on board, and have a degree of sympathy with, what has been said that the wholesale privatisation route is not a model suited for the Isle of Man. The mistakes that were made across, which I saw firsthand, I would not want to see repeated here, not in specific terms, not least for the reasons given by Hon. Members in this debate, who have referred to specific parts of the leisure portfolio in particular, but I do ask if the model presented in this Report, as amended this evening, 7220 or as of Monday, is the only model worthy of consideration? Would a period of consultation, reflection and further consideration not possibly bring up an even better, an improved model? Might it not be wise to have, in these stringent financial times, a period where we could least attempt to evaluate the costs of the exercise?

What we are being asked to sign is, in effect, a blank cheque for unquantified costs. I do not 7225 know if you can quantify the costs, but the argument has been made that it is very difficult to quantify the costs. If we did that to the nth degree, we would not make any decision, but I would at least like to have a stab at doing that within a certain time frame, particularly in the economic conditions we are, with the cuts internally that Government has to face to know what some of


_________________________________________________________________ 1024 T127

these additional costs which have been acknowledged, albeit in the greater long-term good of 7230 reducing costs, but I think we ought, ourselves, to know what some of these short-term costs might be. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I say, is it the only model?

Well, Hon. Members, Mr President, I presume all Members have received from the Chief Executive of the Borough of Douglas, on behalf of the policy and resources committee of the Council, a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Secretary, copied to us, (Interjections) which sets out 7235 an alternative proposed structure that, by advocating eight Departments instead of nine, fulfil the aims, it alleges, of the 2006 Report and results in savings.

There was absolute silence until I mentioned Douglas Corporation – (Laughter) – I think I have struck a nerve or something? I do not know whether the policy and resources committee of Douglas Corporation have come up with a better model than the Council of Ministers. I have not 7240 had time to look at it, but it is an alternative (Laughter and interjections) that actually that may or may not merit further examination.

It is in the public domain, whether you like it or not, Hon. Members. I hold no brief for Douglas Corporation, but they have come forward with an alternative which I think should be considered, along with all options, to see if this is the only model because, who knows, further 7245 consideration and consultation may just be of benefit to us, as we carry this forward. (Interjection)

With all due respect to Government, the way this has been handled has not been Government’s finest hour. I am all for decisive leadership and taking action and moving things forward, but to do that, you are as well to have people behind you – people whom you are going to need to carry forward your reforms – and I therefore would strongly suggest a further period of reflection and 7250 consideration about this.

Mr President, the danger of not having prepared something written is that you do not necessarily know when your speech is finished. (Laughter) I suspect mine now has.

Mr Karran: It is now. 7255 The President: Mr Callister. Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr President. I hate having my Sunday afternoon reading the Sunday papers ruined by somebody pushing 7260

something through the letter box, especially as I have probably had a glass or two of wine too much by that time, anyway! But the other thing I do not like terribly much is being here at half past nine, half past 10, half past 11 – will it be 12 o’clock? I do not know; but there is a clear reason why we are, in my opinion, and I believe that is because the matter was not properly, fully consulted on, with Members in particular. I am not suggesting that the consultation needed to go 7265 out to the world and his wife. But I do believe that this was thrust onto Members far too soon. There is a speed about this which I am highly suspicious about, and I do think that it also is the wrong time for this to be coming forward because, as soon as I read the Report, I was amazed to see these changes, and I thought it is only 18 months now before a general election. The time to have these changes is either in year one or year two of a new administration, having thought them 7270 out carefully before they are put forward.

I will also refer to this article in the Examiner in January, because I think that is important as well. It goes much wider than consulting with Members on what was said there. It seems very odd that the policy that the Chief Minister had in his mind at that time suddenly changed and that it did not need any consultation at all, effectively. 7275

Furthermore, yesterday – I think it was yesterday, but it seems a long time ago – in the Budget, we, I think, agreed the budgets for all the existing Departments. Now, if this goes ahead, as it may well do, there is going to be a big job, I presume, in the Treasury to reorganise all the budgets and we will have to start and have another Budget debate all over again, I presume.

The other thing that surprised me is, as pretty well everything we do in Government requires to 7280 have a costing, or at least an idea of what schemes are going to cost, that this has not been costed at all.

The costs are not known. There will be costs, we know there will be costs, and I cannot see anything that says it is going to cut out the bureaucracy that we have, which is quite staggering. When I came in here, I could not believe the amount of paperwork that we were presented with. 7285

I would congratulate the Chief Minister on making the changes that he did in respect of the agricultural community, (A Member: Hear, hear.) and I think clearly that had to be done; otherwise, it was certainly doomed to failure, left in the way that it came to us originally.


_________________________________________________________________ 1025 T127

I rather hoped that when the original Report came out three years ago… After it had been kicked into the long grass, I hoped it was going to stay there because I did not really think it was 7290 worth picking up again, quite frankly.

I also think the agricultural industry was not treated very well in the way it came forward and the collection of other areas that were going to be brought in, like bus services, sports, entertainment and so on, and the industry… I think we do not value it enough in the Isle of Man politically, because you will never know the time when that boat will not arrive in Douglas 7295 harbour and you will never be able to foresee the circumstances that would arise where food supplies are not coming in and getting onto the supermarket shelves. We do need to take care of the agriculture industry and encourage it and help it as much as possible, because the day when we need them more than anything else, you never know when that might arrive.

However, I would finally, Mr President, say that there are a number of amendments here 7300 before us, and one or two of these are extremely important because we must not lose sight of the fact that what we are debating at the moment is this Report, which lists out in the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure all those areas that we do not want to have in farming. To get the amendments through in the House of Keys, you require, as we know, 13 votes, and in the Legislative Council five, and that would apply to the motion or the amendments. To get 7305 suspension of Standing Orders, as we all know, requires 16 votes in the Keys and six in the Legislative Council. Unless you support either the amendment from Mr Gawne or Mr Crookall…

If they are not supported, what you will have voted for will be the old system of Community, Culture and Leisure, and if there is a failure to have suspension of Standing Orders, I would like to ask the Chief Minister what he will then do, because presumably we will have agreed to this 7310 package, and it will be a matter for him, if it fails.

Thank you, Mr President. The President: I would point out to the Court that Mr Crookall’s amendment has not been

seconded. Hon. Members, I have the same concern over Mr Crookall’s amendment, in relation to 7315 the new production, if we suspend Standing Orders in relation to the wording. Nevertheless, I have accepted Mr Gawne’s, I will accept Mr Crookall’s.

Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. 7320 This all has come out of the Report on scope and structure and I entirely accept that, at this

time in our financial position, it would be entirely wrong to address both at once. It is not to say that scope should not be addressed, at least by debate at some point in the future, but I do think that the Chief Minister was right in not dealing with scope at the same time as proposed changes to structure. 7325

With regard to the changing structure of Government, it seems to me that you can cut the cake in many ways which are all acceptable and, to that extent, there is much to be commended in the proposal from Council of Ministers, as there is in the proposal from the Hon. Member, Mr Watterson. But I do think that if we are going to make any progress at all, we have got to plump for one proposal and work at it. 7330

The Council of Ministers have come forward with their suggestion and I do see some value in that. Indeed, both proposals that we have before us primarily seem to have been driven by the need for a Department of Economic Development. I think that is very important in the whole restructuring of Government. So far as the motion on the Order Paper is concerned, I have great concerns about that. I cannot see how you can say one thing and invite us to vote on another. (Mr 7335 Karran: Absolutely.)

The motion, which I would not have supported, puts agriculture in the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure. It is the wrong place for it, as the Chief Minister has acknowledged and is now prepared to move it to the Department of the Environment. There are arguments as to whether that is the right Department. You might suggest that the Department of 7340 Economic Development is appropriate. However, I do think that it would be rather outgunned in that Department by other elements of our economy and our industry. So perhaps the Department of the Environment is the appropriate one and at least we have an indication from the industry itself that they are content that that would be an appropriate place for the agricultural function to sit. 7345

So far as the other proposals are concerned, it seems to me that, if push comes to shove, you can have a Department of Economic Development, by moving elements of the Department of Treasury and DTI without too much reference to any other Department. If this fails, then I still think you can do that and if, indeed, the whole thing fails, there is no reason why we cannot make


_________________________________________________________________ 1026 T127

some progress in that direction. We have Corporate Leadership Groups, where people are paid to 7350 work inter-departmentally and if there is a will, we can work better politically, inter-departmentally, so all is not lost, if this does not go through, in my view.

However, there is a move to have a change in structures, and I would like to invite the Chief Minister just to comment, please, on one or two points in here. Energy is not specifically mentioned anywhere, and I think energy policy is very important. I presume that is meant to sit in 7355 the Department of the Environment – or is it to sit in the Department of Economic Development? Perhaps we can have some clarity on that particular issue. (Mr Lowey and another Member: Infrastructure.) Well, there we are, another suggestion: Infrastructure.

The proposal to put water and the sewerage authority together seems to me a sensible one, in that there are synergies there. But as somebody indicated earlier, we do not know, in all of this, 7360 when you get down to the detail, what sort of difficulties are going to emerge, whether they be in terms of staffing rates or structures. I would like the Chief Minister to indicate what sort of work has gone on behind the scenes to analyse those issues which, indeed, Mr Watterson has set out in his proposed amendment, in respect of his proposal, on the sorts of issues such as set-up costs, longer-term costs, implications on staff, and so on. Budgets, I understand, have been worked on, 7365 because I think we had a note to say that they are ready to transfer the budgets at the beginning of the year. Clearly a lot of work has gone on behind the scenes because the Orders which are coming before us later must have involved a huge amount of drafting work. I just wonder what else has gone on in the background that we have not yet heard about. I hope there is something that we can be told because, if not, I have a bit of concern that this is a fairly superficial development at this 7370 stage and we are launching into it on 1st April without some sort of clear roadmap as to how we are going from today to 1st April and bringing all this about.

The question of a planning authority – I wonder if the Chief Minister could indicate how he sees that planning authority functioning. Does he see it as a Statutory Board? Does he see the planning development staff, the development control and planning officers sitting in the authority 7375 or sitting in the Department? I have not got a clear vision of how that is intended to work.

There will be other issues which emerge from this, particularly, I think, on the economic development side of things. Where will control of various funds sit, such as the ICT, ISD funding and the Development Fund? Are they going to stay in Treasury’s control, or will they be transferring to the Department of Economic Development? 7380

At a time when budgets are going to be severely pushed, I think we have to have some sort of sense from the Chief Minister that these changes are not going to cost a huge amount of money. I personally do not feel that to have better co-operative working and to change departmental structures you need actually physically, in the first instance anyway, to be moving everybody around, and I wonder if he has a view on that. 7385

So far as the structures proposed by the Council of Ministers are concerned, agriculture made a noise and therefore it was reacted to by the Chief Minister. We have not heard a lot of noise from anywhere else and, on that basis, I presume that people are prepared to work to make the structures before us, as submitted by the Council of Ministers, effective. If we are moving agriculture from the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure, I do think that it is leaving rather a small 7390 Department to constitute a ministry. However, no doubt, like Topsy, it will grow, but that may depend very much on budgets.

Mr President, whilst the amendment in the name of Mr Watterson has some things to commend it, particularly the creation of a Department of Economic Development, I feel that if we are going to undertake consultation – and it does not say with whom, but if it were with the wider world – 7395 we can pretty well guarantee what we are going to hear. We will hear half the population saying privatise half of Government, cut down staffing, and we will hear the other half saying, ‘Watch our jobs, you’re not going to do that!’ So, I think that the decisions have got to be sorted out in here.

Mr President, I think I will await the Chief Minister’s response to determine whether or not I 7400 can support his proposals. I do, like the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Callister, have some concerns about the next step in all of this because, as I read it, there is a bit of an act of faith here, in the sense that I can only support the proposal as amended by the Hon. Member, Mr Gawne, in that the intention is more specifically spelt out in that. However, we are still supporting the structure with agriculture in the wrong Department and we are still going to an Order with 7405 agriculture in the wrong Department, hoping on a wing and a prayer that you have a suspension of Standing Orders and that that Order will, in its turn, be amended. It is not a satisfactory situation.

I imagine the Chief Minister could come back anyway in a month’s time, if he wanted to, with another Order which would not require the suspension of Standing Orders, but clearly, the Council of Ministers wanted to progress with this, otherwise they would have waited a month, I imagine, 7410


_________________________________________________________________ 1027 T127

and got the thing formulated more appropriately. But first of all, I will hear what the Chief Minister has to say, before deciding whether to support this. If I do support this motion, I do think we still have a risk when we come to the Orders.

The President: Mr Earnshaw. 7415 Mr Earnshaw: Eaghtyrane, I very much enjoyed the input by the Hon. Member of Council,

Mr Butt tonight. I was very much in tune with the comments that he made. I thought it was a very well-reasoned case that he put and had I spoken before Mr Lowey, our good friend – everybody’s friend in Council – I was going to refer to the comments. Well, I will refer to the comments he 7420 made yesterday, anyway, about the good quality of life we enjoy in the Isle of Man. I cannot remember verbatim what he said, but this was in the Budget debate yesterday: what a great place it is to live and I think we all subscribe to that. I know what an influential speaker he is when he gets on his feet in this place, so I am sorry he beat me to it, because I very much doubt I would be able to persuade him to change his mind on anything here, but I will give it a go. 7425

I think we need to… I have just referred to what a good quality of life we have in the Isle of Man, the same as he did and I think we have got to work like mad to ensure we keep it. In my manifesto when I stood for the House of Keys in 2006, I highlighted the dangers of complacency, and I think we have arrived at that point at the moment. It is staring us in the face and I think we should be very careful about the steps we take here. I think I will strike a chord here with Mr 7430 Lowey, we must recognise how quickly things can unravel. We should remember the speed at which tourism collapsed in the 1970s and we should learn from that history. Why did it collapse? It was because we had been complacent. There had been a lack of vision and a lack of investment in the tourism industry and older Members in this Court will very well remember how vibrant the tourist industry was. It was all there one minute and then, within a couple of years, it was gone and 7435 tourism has never really recovered, try as we might to bring it back. I think people do work hard to do that.

Hon. Members, I think we are sitting here today with an opportunity to move forward. Mr Karran: Over the cliff! 7440 Mr Earnshaw: Well, not over a cliff. If we want another example of unravelling and the speed

with which it happens, I think we have only got to look across the water, east and west, and the ones to the east have problems of such magnitude that they have had to raid the pantry of a small island – ours. Their action has left us with a big headache – not a crisis, but certainly a big 7445 headache. Our residents, I believe, are looking for some decisive action. We are sitting here today with an opportunity to address it. We need to move forward, and if we do not take it – I believe we should take it – the opportunity will be gone. I think it will be lost in the long grass, if not the Malayan jungle. It will just disappear.

I believe, Eaghtyrane, we have got to recognise the linkage between today’s opportunity and 7450 economic benefit. I do not think we have talked enough about that. A day is a long time in politics. Yesterday, we listened to the Treasury Minister produce a well-constructed Budget, and I think he has been quite widely applauded for that. Most people seem to have been content with the balance it created, and everybody in this Hon. Court – apart from Mr Karran – voted for it. I talked with quite a number of people, as others did yesterday, at lunchtime, from our business community, a 7455 lot of movers and shakers there, who joined us on Budget day. The business community, as far as I can see, on which we very much depend for our success, if that was a sample of it, seemed pretty happy with what we have done. They expect, and as far as I could see, they welcome the progress which would be generated by creating a Department of Economic Development. They want action and nobody I met said we should consult. The message I was getting, when I was asking the 7460 question, was ‘Get on with it.’ (A Member: Hear, hear.)

Not only are the business community at ease. I represent a constituency brimming with Government employees. Nobody has contacted me to say, ‘Don’t do this!’ I have had plenty of letters this last week about motorbike licences, (Mr Downie: Hear, hear.) but none about the scope and structure of Government. 7465

Eaghtyrane, we have had a generation of growth: 13 years I would say it has probably been now – Mr Bell will correct me if I am a year or two wrong. We have perhaps overdeveloped in that time and, more recently, a dependence and a culture on consultation for just about everything. We have perhaps moved a little bit too close to a consensus style of Government.


_________________________________________________________________ 1028 T127

But we cannot always consult and we cannot always seek consent. There is an element of 7470 urgency attached to this, and I think we would be accused of fiddling while Rome burns if we fail to act promptly today.

The fulcrum of the change in the Report we have is the creation of a Department of Economic Development. This will become the big-hitting Department of Government, and other changes that we can talk about all night if we want – and perhaps we will – to some extent fall in behind it. The 7475 Department of Economic Development is designed to increase our earnings and protect our reserves, and Mr Bell, the Treasury Minister, told us yesterday how much of our reserves we are going to need in the next few years to make the books balance. This will help.

A Member: It won’t! 7480 Mr Earnshaw: I think the Hon. Member, Mr Quayle, described this Department as the engine

room of Government, and I thought that was a very good description, and I think we owe it to the public of the Isle of Man to act now.

Eaghtyrane, I believe some of the new Members are… I may be wrong, but I believe they are 7485 uneasy with the amendment to which they have subscribed, and I would urge them to see the gravity of the situation and have the courage to reconsider their position. I do believe they have got it wrong. I believe they should reconsider. I do not believe they wish to be perceived as any sort of negative group, and I do not think they are. They will want to be seen as doing the best for the people who elected them. I do not think they are on the right track to do that, and it might be 7490 quite a climbdown for them, but I would ask them to reconsider their position.

In summary, Eaghtyrane, the office of Chief Minister is a pretty lonely place. I believe we should focus on the imperatives at hand and, in this regard, I commend the Chief Minister for the clear and decisive leadership he has displayed in these most difficult circumstances. Politicians are sometimes criticised for vagueness and their reluctance to take decisions. The Chief Minister has 7495 responded swiftly and decisively to the most significant funding issue to face us for a generation and he has proposed a bold and imaginative restructuring of the Isle of Man public sector, which has got some things that perhaps need improving at the moment, but I think he will, when he sums up, perhaps refer to that. I believe it deserves all our support.

The creation of a Department of Economic Development will allow all those concerned with 7500 generating economic growth for this Island to combine their efforts within a system that is perfectly designed to achieve success and produce economies of scale, and this has never been more important. We simply do not have time to consult for months or years on a subject that is likely to attract views from every quarter, and reference was made to that by the Hon. Member of Council, Mrs Christian. We do not have the luxury of time to consider each of these views. We do 7505 need decisive action. This is a time when the Manx public will expect their elected representatives to demonstrate vision, maturity and sound judgement. It is my firm belief that the Chief Minister, in bringing forward these considered restructuring proposals, has clearly demonstrated these qualities. I say let’s get on with it, and I support this motion.

7510 The President: Mr Malarkey. Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. It feels quite apt that I follow the last speaker, with some of his comments with regard to the

‘Gang of Six’, the ‘Secret Six’, or whatever proposals they are getting called these days. I shall 7515 come back to the Report in a second.

Mr President, I think we have to put it in perspective, here, why this debate is taking so long tonight, and why people in this Court feel quite so bitter. Yesterday, we had the Budget debate. Six days ago, at lunchtime, as happens every year, we were invited to pick our packs up, sign for them, take them, read them. Then we sat down with the Chief Minister and Treasury Minister, and we 7520 had a chance to discuss them, debate them. We had six days to take it all in, before it became public. We had time to go through, talk amongst ourselves, they were marked ‘Top Secret’. Mr President reminded us that it was top secret, and we were not to discuss it with anybody else. We were trusted for a whole six days, with the Budget.

Two weeks ago on Sunday, four o’clock in the afternoon, the biggest restructuring of 7525 Government in 20 years landed on our doorsteps, out of the blue. Four o’clock in the afternoon – and what is more, it said, ‘In 16 hours’ time, the world and his family will know about it, because it is going to the press, at nine o’clock on Monday morning. So if you do not like it, tough, everywhere is closed, but I am telling everybody on Monday, this is the way I am going forward.’


_________________________________________________________________ 1029 T127

Let us go back to 2006, when the Scope of Government was brought out, just prior to the last 7530 election. The Gang of Six, the Secret Six, were not Members of this Court then. It was a big election issue at the time. I know I had to read the Report, because I was asked questions about it on the doorstep. ‘How would you go with it? What are your thoughts on it? Do you think we should privatise? Do you think we should do this?’ I gave my opinion on what I thought was in that Report, and how we should go forward. Then I thought, ‘I’m elected now, so I am going to 7535 have some input into this, because I have spoken to people on the doorsteps. I know what they want.’

So you can imagine my surprise to find out, two weeks ago last Sunday, that my input was not wanted. I had this document sitting here, on my doorstep and the Chief Minister has written across it, basically, ‘Take it or leave it.’ That was it: ‘Take it or leave it. You are not getting any input 7540 into this.’ If you vote for it today, it goes through. Let’s not make any mistakes today. If we do not vote for this today and we do put it off to July, it is dead. We know it is dead because we have already been pre-warned by Ministers all around the place that if we bring it back in July we will not be doing the restructuring until September. If we go to September, it is 12 months before the next Election. It is not halfway through a year end. It will not happen. So if we do not take it 7545 today, make no mistake about it: it is dead in the water. I do not make any bones about that.

The last speaker talked about our report. My colleagues know I do not agree with everything that is in our report, but it is a different report. It is an alternative. At least we have brought an alternative to the table, more than what the Chief Minister did. He has not given us a choice. It is back to take it or leave it. So I do not think the Minister should be too surprised that I feel a little 7550 bit bitter about the way I have been treated. I have been in business for the biggest part of my life, Mr President. One thing I did learn in business, when you are employing people or you are working with people, is treat them with respect, not contempt. I believe what the Chief Minister has done here is treated a lot of the Members of this Court with contempt, and that has been his biggest mistake, as far as I am concerned. 7555

I have signed up to the amendment coming through to put it forward to July. I know if I vote with that tonight I am going to be labelled as one of the people who killed the Economic Development Committee. We are going to be labelled with that because we will be throwing the baby out with the bath water, rather than picking the best parts of it. So I am going to listen with great interest, hopefully for the apology I am going to get from the Chief Minister for the way he 7560 has treated some of the Members of this Court. I think that would be a step in the right direction if he is expecting some support here tonight.

I do not want to harp on on some of the issues that have come from the Chief Minister, whom I have got a lot of respect for, but some of his ways of coming forward with some of the things he does… It does not command our respect and it does not command us to support you. We learned 7565 last June how we had Department changes. It came through the post and landed on our doorsteps at the same time, virtually, as the press were being told.

A Member: Who is more important? 7570 Mr Malarkey: We are supposed to be in here working together. Our views and our attitudes

and what we want should be listened to by the Chief Minister. It should not be his way or no way and, unfortunately, it is starting to be the message that is coming forward to me with the way the Chief Minister is presenting some of these things.

So I, too, will listen tonight to what the Chief Minister has to say in his winding up. I am not 7575 hell-bent on taking our amendment forward tonight. What I am prepared to do, Mr President, at this stage, is certainly second Mr Crookall’s amendment coming forward because we have already proved that the Report we had two weeks ago was not quite right because I quite agree, there should have been Agriculture in there, but I also believe Fisheries should be in there as well. So there is room for scope. There is also room for change and we have to make sure that the Chief 7580 Minister is prepared to change things as we go along when he realises he does not get everything 100% right, other people do have some opinions and sometimes he can be wrong.

Thank you, Mr President. The President: Mr Malarkey, Hon. Members, has seconded Mr Crookall’s amendment. 7585 As I told you before, I will accept Mr Crookall’s amendment to put it before the Court, but I

want to make it plain yet again, Hon. Members, that it is very similar – because I have now checked – to Mr Gawne’s amendment, which I had to check on in relation to Item 13: if you check with the Transfer of Functions (New Departments) (Amendment) Order, which would be Statutory


_________________________________________________________________ 1030 T127

Document 113, subject to you suspending Standing Orders coming forward, it does not comply 7590 with that and you cannot amend an Order.

Mr Cregeen. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. The way the debate started on this motion today I feel was a bit of an ill omen. The way that it 7595

is being progressed, it does not sit right for a major restructuring of Government to be made so that the decisions and alterations are on the hoof. It does not feel right that we are not properly prepared for this, and if it is not quite right now, we will just put a quick amendment in and, hopefully, it will be there… It is like a bit of a wing and a prayer and, hopefully, it will all come right in the end! It sits really uncomfortably with me that we are just hoping that the Chief 7600 Minister is going to pull this out of the bag later on.

The Chief Minister, no doubt, in his reply will be very eloquent and put down everything else apart from his own proposals and it is a shame, really, because what I would say to the other Ministers who have criticised the alternate proposals: how much input did you have into this document? Because, in the alternate document, all of us had input into it! We had the opportunity 7605 to put input into this and I would challenge you to tell me how much input into this document did all you Ministers have. I would doubt that there would be more than four of you that can say you had anything to do with it! That is consultation!

We talked about this and we tried to bring an alternate proposal to this Hon. Court. That is the consultation that we were hoping to bring forward. It is to say that these are our ideas: see what 7610 you think. It doesn’t have to be kicked into the long grass. It is entirely up to the Chief Minister. If he wants to kick this into the long grass, he can make it last till July: if he wants to progress it, he can bring it through quicker. There is nothing stopping him, as he proved when he brought this proposal to us: two weeks! Now, if he can do this in two weeks, why can’t he consult with other people outside this place? It can be within Government, it can be the people who will be involved. 7615 As said earlier, the alterations for agriculture: ‘Oh, well, we’ve learnt things since we first put it there that said that we could not put it with Environment’. Well, how do you know what you are not going to learn in the next few weeks when you are consulting with people in the Departments to say: will this work?

The Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne, criticised our report, saying: ‘Well, they’ve put this part 7620 here and it is going to be stuck there, and you’ve got to…’ You know, there is flexibility in it. There is flexibility, and yet the proposal which he had nothing to do with has suddenly become ‘flexible’, that ‘we can work this out. If it doesn’t suit us in the months to come, we can change it’. It is really bizarre how anybody else’s proposal is set in stone – we can’t alter it – but don’t you worry, boys, our one, we can make it work! 7625

The Member for Middle, Mr Quayle, criticising the alternate proposal. He mentioned about the buses and privatisation and, ‘Oh, yes, we can have Oyster cards’. Now, unless things have changed in the last couple of months, I think you would be surprised if you can have Oyster cards on your ticketing machines, Minister. I don’t think they are fit for purpose… ( Interjections.)

7630 Mr Karran: That will be another load of money wasted! Mr Cregeen: You also mention that there were going to be new chief executives! Well, I think

there are a few Chief Executives will be a bit concerned out there when he says there are going to be new chief executives. 7635

He also stated that there had been an awful lot of adjournments since the election, and that we had put off reports. Well, maybe that is because we are not all yes-men. Maybe that is because we are questioning things! That is what we are here for, to question and to make sure that what we are passing is the right thing. Surely when you go out to the electorate, you say I will be there to represent you, fear or favour. That is the thing that we come in here and you say I will represent 7640 the people without fear of favour.

Mr Butt: he is concerned about the privatisation and corporatisation. It is consultation on it: if it does not work, if people are not interested… you could go on to the NSC café – if nobody wants it, when we have got it, if it can be made to turn round a profit, surely these are things that we should be looking at to make sure that we’re not losing money, to make sure that we are working 7645 keener and leaner. If you don’t talk to people to see if you can do it better, you will never know.

When I was looking through the Chief Minister’s Scope and Structure, it was going on about Manx culture and the latest one is that, yes, we are going to have Manx culture into this Department. Now we currently do not have anybody dealing with Manx culture in any of the Departments, so is this additional staffing? Not in the Department of Leisure, we do not have 7650


_________________________________________________________________ 1031 T127

the… Not in the Department of Culture and Leisure, we do not have anybody there. I have not seen anything moving from the Department of Education regarding the Manx culture. Are we going to lose that? It does not say.

We have also got recreational clubs. Does the Chief Minister mean the youth centres? I understand that rural libraries were left out a number of years ago. We had the mobile 7655

libraries, but rural libraries may not exist any more. Mr Lowey made a very good point about how many Ministers can put their hands on their

hearts and say that they have read the Orders. Yes, they have been put here. How many can put their hands on their hearts and say they have read it and they are going to vote for it? There are a lack of hands here, which worries me. 7660

A Member: For goodness’ sake! Mr Cregeen: It does make a concern that we are getting rushed into this, just for the sake of it. We have a Department of Social Care and a Department of Health. One of my concerns 7665

regarding the separation of that is will we end up pushing beds between the Hospital and Social Care, because whose budget is it going to come out of if you are in their bed or in this bed? Surely, that is something that we should be looking at as well.

Soon after the Election, we were faced with a fait accompli that we were having a Corporate Leadership Group and these people were going to get a nice pay rise for being leaders. (A 7670 Member: Absolutely.) Then we ended up with change management people being employed and now we have had people seconded from across Government to look into change management. How much has this cost? Surely we were employing the Corporate Leadership Group to be leaders and make the savings, yet we have employed more people to back this up. It just seems strange. If we are looking for savings, surely we should be starting to look at the top. 7675

In our structure, our proposal that we have put forward, is a reduction of one Department. We currently have a vacancy for a chief executive, a finance officer. Now, surely, that would the opportunity to save a significant amount of salaries by amalgamating what was left, as in buses, rail, NSC and the Villa Marina Gaiety, into the existing Departments. They could quite easily fit under the existing structure that we have got down here and make a saving across there. 7680

I would hope that Members will support Mr Watterson’s amendment. It gives us a chance to think about what we are doing. Do not rush into it because, if it is wrong, we are going to have a job changing it, because we would have employed the new chief executives, the new finance officers and all these other Departments. As we all know, it will be very difficult to make those places redundant afterwards. So, I would say, give this a chance. Consult for a short time, bring it 7685 back and, as long as the Chief Minister does not want to kick it into the long grass, unless that is his proposal, I would rather leave it, then I would say vote for the amendment.

The President: Lord Bishop. 7690 The Lord Bishop: Thank you, Mr President. I have not spoken during this meeting of the Court. Abraham Lincoln once said better to

remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt! (Laughter) And I have to say that this Ash Wednesday is undoubtedly the most penitential Ash Wednesday (Laughter) of my entire life. 7695

Mr President, it is a shame for a Bishop to admit that he is an agnostic, but I am agnostic about the scope and structure of Government, and I look around me and I see a vast range of experience in this Court – some immense experience and some very little. One thing I know is that the least experience in this Court is mine. I know virtually nothing compared with someone like Mr Lowey over here on my left, and therefore I have to trust some people. And that is why I trust the Council 7700 of Ministers, because they have to operate this thing. Of course, I also read the paper from the letter from Douglas Borough Council. I think that there are some quite good ideas in there and I have some sympathy with Mr Speaker on the occasions that he has spoken in these related debates but, over four decades of working life, I have been a member of goodness’ knows how many governing bodies, councils, synods and so on. When you get to be a bishop you get to chair a lot of 7705 these things, both national and, in some cases, international bodies. One of those bodies that I chair is responsible for leading 10,000 of the Church of England and the Church in Wales’s lay leadership. That is quite an area of responsibility, and I could not do that – or we could not do that – as a governing body for that large number of people operating at this time of night, trying to produce something out of what we have got in front of us. 7710


_________________________________________________________________ 1032 T127

Mr President, I believe that we will be very lucky if we get this right tonight, because we have got ourselves in too much of a muddle. This is in no way to make wise decisions. I think we have reached the moment – and I’m not going to propose a motion for closure – I got into enough trouble for that when we had dog poo! (Laughter) I am not going to do that, but perhaps somebody should, because I think the time has come when we trust the Council of Ministers or we delay. 7715

Thank you. The President: Mr Quirk. Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. 7720 If I could just comment on a few things there. The scope and structure there, of Government,

that was in a document in 2006, has had plenty of discussion and the document that came out from the Council of Ministers. I share my concerns with my other colleagues, too, around the table there when this was… We could have been part of the discussion. The confidence that the Chief Minister must have in some of us in this Chamber, we could have had an input into it and we could 7725 have had a differing point of view, which I think when we met together, when we had the document on the Monday, there was some difficulty that we all had when we were discussing that particular document.

One of the issues that I had personally was that I asked, well, maybe, do we need the nine? Do we need the nine Council of Ministers… not whether we need them, but do we need nine 7730 Departments and I am more going down the road to say that maybe it should be eight. I know they are statutorily bound, that the Chief Minister can have nine Council of Ministers and that is up to him, and I can live with that, but I wonder whether, as part of the exercise, what we actually could have done is look at the savings that were tangible in the air… were ready for the offering – vacancies which already existed, which could not cause this Court, or outside this parliament 7735 building here, any concerns. We are not filling the vacancies by filling them back up. There are no concerns there.

One of the other issues I do have a concern with, too, is that they are people. They are members of staff. I have not had a great groundswell of people getting on to me, only, like my other colleague who had said before there, regarding the farming industry too. 7740

I am quite happy to support the amendment from Mr Crookall, whether it is correct or not, Mr President. I am sure that if the same help and advice that was given to Mr Crookall, that was given to the other one and it would balance the system up, it would be great.

One of the other issues I have got on my mind to the Chief Minister, which we could have had discussion with – I must admit when we did want to see him on a particular day, we went to see 7745 him. I welcome the initiative, despite what anybody says when we meet in the Barool Suite. I mean, we may not always agree when we go out the door, but at least we get an opportunity to discuss the issue.

That is one of the concerns I do have throughout this particular document is: we could have done that a little bit earlier, and I think after looking at tonight, what has happened in the particular 7750 Chamber and the feeling which must be out there in the public domain, if we are struggling with it, like the Lord Bishop was saying, I wonder whether we are actually going down the right road. I do support the initiative that Mrs Christian said from the Council there, that there is an opportunity to look at things, even – I think she did say, and I will paraphrase a little bit – if all else fails, we can do something else. And I think all of us round the table, there is not one of us here does not want 7755 the Department of Infrastructure (Several Members: Hear, hear.) to actually survive and nurture and go on… I do not think there is one member in this House who is going to say ‘no’ to that particular one.

There are some other issue that I have, too, regarding all these Statutory Boards, which are under Departments: I wonder whether they will be top heavy. I also wonder, because the one that 7760 really is sewage should be going to Water – sewage should be making savings. There is a difficulty there, under Whitley Council, and I am aware of the issues, being a former Member of Whitley Council twice on the trot, once as a volunteer, once I was asked to do – that there are different wage agreements, so if this structure is to come in sensibly – and I am sure we all want to do some of it – there is going to be a little bit of pain there, there is going to be a little bit of 7765 animosity. If you are having colleagues working together and they are on two different structures, there has got to be that. I have seen it before in the past.

Just regarding the document that we put forward there, I do support that. I did not support everything in it and I don’t think… All of us had an issue with all sorts of different things that were in there, but we came to a conclusion, which was a natural conclusion, and I support the 7770 issues there that Mr Malarkey from South Douglas throws up. I may not have been as strong as he


_________________________________________________________________ 1033 T127

was to the Minister, but I think it had to be said here tonight, because there is not one of us that is round this table tonight – apart from my colleague from Onchan here – that has not worked damn hard in their Departments, done things wanted, cross-fertilisation, things to happen, spoken to our Ministers, had conversations with them. They have taken on the issues that we have expressed to 7775 them, and that happens. I do not want people outside this particular Chamber to think that the Ministers do not listen. The Ministers that I am under, anyway – are part of, anyway – do take a conscious view of what the Department Members say. We are not there, just to press a button because it is convenient. We do have our say, we do have our views. We may not always agree with what is going on – 7780

Mr Karran: But you had better vote when your – Mr Quirk: No, and that is the saddest thing I get from my colleague from Onchan here, all the

time. 7785 Mr Karran: That is the reality. Mr Quirk: If he thinks that I am in a Department just to get the money, I am sure – 7790 Mr Karran: No. I didn’t say that. Mr Quirk: Well, that is what you are aiming at, but you are wrong (Interjection by Mr

Karran) and that is what the difference is (Interjection) between us, Mr Karran, who are… Came back in 2006 here, we got in there to make that difference. We wanted to be part of this 7795 Government (Interjection) and, at the minute – if you will leave me alone – this document here, I do not feel (Interjection) – shut up! – we were part of it (Interjection) and that is what I was trying to explain.

I feel there is still an opportunity for things to get together and we can move forward, as the Budget was done yesterday, and the concurrence from all the Members around this particular 7800 Chamber, we want to move off together. We want to row that canoe down the stream the right way.

I will be supporting the amendment by Mr Watterson because I think it gives us some opportunity to have that further discussion, but it does not stop the Chief Minister, or the Council of Ministers, doing anything else to what Mrs Christian said. 7805

The President: Mr Bell, Hon. Member for Ramsey. Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr President. The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw, made reference to fiddling while Rome burns, 7810

and I think if Nero is listening in to this debate tonight he would be very proud of us. When it comes to procrastination, I think we have it now off to a fine art.

Mr President, it is only 24 hours since we voted in favour of the most radical Budget the Isle of Man has seen in recent memory. It was forced upon us because of the economic situation – or the financial situation – we find ourselves in now because of external factors. Whatever the reason 7815 behind those changes, they are a stark reality which we, as the Government of the Isle of Man, have to face up to. We have taken, yesterday, collectively, a decision to make some of the most radical changes to Government this Island will remember in its lifetime. We have agreed to chop £37 million off public expenditure; we have put up taxes; we have put up charges; we will reduce services. 7820

Members voted for that, Mr President, without any idea of the specific areas where those cuts are going to take place, how that is going to impact on services and, at the same time, in the knowledge that this Budget which we supported yesterday will almost certainly affect, in one way or another, every man, woman and child on this Island. And here we are tonight, talking about a redistribution of departmental responsibilities into a new structure, and Members are looking for 7825 every nut and bolt, and detail and impact, before this decision is taken.

Mr President, we need to get back to the core reason why we are here. Comment has been made about the leadership from the Chief Minister: what about the leadership from this Chamber? We are elected here to look after the welfare of the people of the Isle of Man – all the people at the Isle of Man – and that is what we are trying to achieve. (Interjections) 7830

Mr Malarkey: We’re not against it!


_________________________________________________________________ 1034 T127

Mr Bell: Mr President, we have heard long arguments today about the short time Members have had this document, and, to be fair, perhaps we could have had it longer. There has also been a comment, Mr President, about the parallel with the Budget. I would remind Hon. Members they 7835 had the Budget, which presented these radical changes to the Isle of Man, for six days –

A Member: Before the public. Mr Bell: Members had the proposed change and redistribution of departmental responsibilities 7840

for over two weeks, (Interjection by Mr Malarkey) there was a presentation to Members where they had the same opportunity to question the Chief Minister, as Members had to question me and the Treasury team over the Budget. I would just ask Members to put it in perspective.

It is absolutely fundamental, in my mind, that we address with great urgency the need to stimulate greater economic activity in this Isle of Man. I would remind Hon. Members what the 7845 background to the Budget yesterday was. Next year, we will have a shortfall of £85 million which we have to find. The year after, we have to find £142 million. Where is that money coming from? The best way of doing it is stimulating economic activity, which will generate new economic opportunities for the Island, new revenue streams for the Government in the future. This is what we should be focusing on, not whether we had a day or two shorter time to read the document, not 7850 whether the Chief Minister was discourteous to one or two Members. We are talking about the economic lifeline of this Isle of Man and the financial viability of this community. It is as serious as that and we have got to take this issue seriously. We cannot be worried about the sensitivities of Members, who perhaps felt they had been mistreated by the Chief Minister. This is a wholly different level altogether and we need to get serious about what it is we are dealing with, Mr 7855 President.

The vital importance is to get this new Department of Economic Development established. This is one thing, I think, which we all agree on. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) We cannot have that delay, while we fudge and fudge and argue over the minutiae of who is sitting at which desk in which office. That can come later. If it is not 100% right – and I am not saying whether it is 7860 absolutely right or not – there is still a chance to revisit it. We can come back later on and refine the departmental structures in a more effective way, if in fact, that is felt appropriate. It is not the end of the world because you vote for everything tonight and it goes through. You can redistribute those responsibilities in the future.

The core to this, though, is to get the Department of Economic Development established. 7865 Without that functioning, without that working and delivering real financial benefits to the Island, it is academic, what you do with the rest of the responsibilities, because we will not have the money to fund those services. I would ask Hon. Members please come back to reality, come back to what the core intent of this purpose is. It could have been presented in a different way – that is open to conjecture and I am sure every Member has their view on that. Whether the distribution is 7870 correct or not, again, we can learn with experience and we can actually amend that, a month, three months, six months down the road, if in fact that happens. What we cannot do is afford to lose the economic opportunities that we need to grasp out there at the moment. We need to get some Government functioning and focused far more effectively on economic growth and economic development as soon as we possibly can. We know there are areas of Government which, frankly, 7875 are underperforming in terms of stimulating new economic activity. There are even one or two, it is fair to say, which are unfit for purpose at the moment, which need a radical overhaul altogether. We cannot achieve that change, if we are sitting here hour after hour after interminable hour, procrastinating over the small print of this particular agreement.

I would ask Hon. Members, please move out of the comfort zone. We are in danger of moving 7880 into paralysis by analysis. We are trying to get things moving. The structure that the Chief Minister has put forward may not be perfect. I accept that and I am willing to listen to Members’ arguments about that, but everything else, apart from the Department of Economic Development is secondary and that is no disrespect to the agricultural community, the fishing community or anyone else. We have to get this core centre of Government sorted out. We can argue for the next 7885 18 months as to whether we have got the rest of the redistribution right. The important thing to remember, Mr President, if this is deferred, if it is put back till July or whenever the period might be, it will be the autumn before work even begins on this. At that point, we are into the run in to the next General Election and for those within Government, who are opposed to the restructuring, it is a great period for them to sit on their hands and wait out the time until politicians perhaps will 7890 be changed after the Election.

I do not believe, it we leave it till the autumn or later, we will see the delivery of this core target that we are trying to achieve from this. I do believe there is unity in this place. I do not think


_________________________________________________________________ 1035 T127

there is any dissenting voice to the need to get this Economic Development Department going. I am sure I speak for everyone when we recognise that, but please put this dross to one side, all 7895 these other arguments: they are irrelevant in terms of getting this Department up and running.

I am sure the Chief Minister – and I do not want to speak for him – had no intent at all to treat – as one or two Members have said – Members with contempt in putting this forward. I believe this is a sincere attempt, Mr President, to try and bring speedily, a new structure together, which can help us through this difficulty. I cannot overstate, Mr President, the major challenges which 7900 are in front of us over this next two or three years. The more we procrastinate, the more we delay the start of this particular journey, the more painful it is going to be for everyone a bit further down the road.

So I would plead with Hon. Members – I am not going into all the details tonight – please trust the Chief Minister on this. The proposal he has put forward is for the restructuring of Government. 7905 The scope of Government, I believe, has to follow immediately on the back of the restructuring when it is finished, because if we are going to make the savings across Government which we need over the next few years, we have to thoroughly investigate the scope of the new Departments as they are set out in this proposal, because, frankly, as it stands at the moment, we cannot afford to maintain services at the breadth and depth we are doing at the moment. It needs a radical 7910 overhaul, so those who think we have missed on the scope, I think it is absolutely essential that the scope has to follow on the back of the structure. They go hand in glove; there is no way round that.

So Mr President, it is very late tonight, I think everyone is thoroughly fed up with this and wants to go home (Members: Hear, hear.) but I would ask Hon. Members, please get back to reality, get back to what the core challenge is. We have got to protect the economy of the Isle of 7915 Man and we have got to protect the financial streams we need to maintain public services on the Isle of Man. Let us forget about the sensitivities all round this, focus on the core and deal with the minutiae later on. There will be plenty of opportunity for that.

The President: Mr Braidwood. 7920 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. The night is waning fast. I hope my speech, apart

from the Chief Minister’s, will be the last! (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear!) (Interjections) Mr President, when this debate started, I was wondering what the views of the people in the

Public Gallery and those listening on the radio were, because I thought it was rather embarrassing 7925 for the Court of Tynwald. But since then, it has been a very interesting debate.

The Hon. Member of Council, Mr Callister, said he thought the timing was all wrong; that this review should have been in the first, second or even the third year of the new Government. However, it is the prerogative of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers to bring forward a restructuring, if they felt that there was no change in services and that it was an internal 7930 operation – although I do feel that the timing is wrong, and I have to agree with some of the Hon. Members who have spoken this evening.

The Hon. Member for Rushen mentioned that there was a difference of two years and one week in between the fourth and fifth meeting of the Governance Committee. But, again, there are a lot of international issues, which were to the fore then and took preference over a restructuring of 7935 Government. It was to the Chief Minister’s credit that he picked up the baton and move forward and reported to the Governance Committee.

I do feel, Mr President, that there should have been more consultation, not with the outside public, because that was in with the initial Report, but with Members of Tynwald, because there is a lot of uncertainty, and I have had e-mails and some phone calls from some of the civil servants, 7940 who are a little unsure what is happening.

The Chief Minister did say today – and it was Mr Speaker who asked the question – that if the recommendation was accepted, there would be consultations, and that there would be implementation from 1st April. I also look at the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson. I presume, as he said, that there was a typographical error and it said, at 7945 the bottom, it would be ‘no later than July this year’. I believe there is a corrected version –

Mr Malarkey: That is the corrected one. Mr Braidwood: – that has just been put in front of me, Mr President. 7950 I could possibly go with two sections of that amendment, the only reason being that… and I

will listen to the reply of the Chief Minister, where it says: ‘… requires Government to consult on both the scope and structure of Government;’


_________________________________________________________________ 1036 T127

If the Chief Minister was going to consult from now, if it was accepted, up to 1st April, I 7955 cannot see any reason why we could not consult and then accept the recommendations in even a couple of months’ time, but I will listen to the views of the Chief Minister, as other Members have done, because he has already said… and he has already changed – and I acknowledge that and I believe it was right of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers to look again at agriculture and put it into the Department of Environment and make it Environment, Food and Agriculture. 7960 That shows that nothing is set in stone.

As has already been alluded to by my Minister at the Treasury, we need a Department of Economic Development. That is essential. We heard it yesterday, and nobody is arguing with that. I do not think there is… That could be put in place. We could start to do that. But I have to agree with him, as well, that we do not want to look at the minutiae. We need to get on with the 7965 Department.

I will listen, hopefully, to the Chief Minister and then I will make my own mind up, Mr President, which way I am going to vote.

The President: Mr Waft. 7970 Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. Welcome to night duty! (Laughter) I have had a long term on nights, so I know what it is like

by this time of night. Congratulations to the 15 or 16 people up in the Gallery: they have stuck it out pretty well – they are going strong. I am delighted with them. 7975

I have got a few things here. The Scope and Structure of Government – that was Sir Miles Walker and co, and I think many of us had input into that. It did not really turn out as we thought it might be, but everyone did have a chance to get involved. The result was the Council of Ministers’ version of that, after their deliberations, and coming from the different ends of the spectrum, I can understand why one particular area was dropped and another area was pounced upon. That is the 7980 way it goes.

What does concern me is the cost. I know, from the short time I spent in Treasury and the short time I spent in watching what was going on, to move a few civil servants from one particular area to another, the cost is enormous! I know it should not be, but it is – by the time they have changed all the telephones, computers, altered the walls, whatever it is. I hope that is not going to happen 7985 this time. I hope somebody has got some idea how we are going to do this, without all that cost being involved. I doubt you are going to get away with it but, nevertheless, that is what does happen, when you start moving and changing things. The cost can escalate tremendously.

I was a bit worried about the… I read the amendment by Mr Watterson, and the ramifications there. There is a lot in there I agree with. I just ponder for a moment, but a lot of people, when 7990 they respond to the word ‘corporatise’, that is a synonym for ‘privatise’. (Mr Lowey: It is, absolutely.) Well, if it is not corporatised now, it damn soon will be privatised, because that is the way it goes! Then things start going pear-shaped, as you might say, and Government is going to pick up the pieces. So it is a bit worrying, that word, and you have got to be very careful when you think about corporatising things. 7995

Certainly the word ‘uncertainty’ has crept into the debate from a lot of Members and it does reflect what is happening outside. There is uncertainty about and people asking, ‘What’s going on?’ Of course, we did not know until that very late time that everybody else knew, so we could not tell them a lot.

From my own point of view, the mental health care with which I have been involved in for so 8000 many years, which went into social care, and we are now talking about care workers and changing the roles and perhaps the salaries from time to time. When changes do take place, you can understand the uncertainty, so they will need lots of reassurance. I myself would like some reassurance, just to know where the mental health care and the psychiatric care comes under – which Minister it is and which chief executive, and where do we send letters to, etc. But that is an 8005 aside. I do not like them put down as minutiae, so that they are so insignificant, they are not even mentioned. That is a bit hard.

The mention of sewerage and water and the way that will mix: I think that is a good move. It has been promised for many, many years.

8010 A Member: The two don’t mix! Mr Waft: I was a bit worried that perhaps they were going to mix electricity and water, but I

thought, no, maybe they are a bit too wise for that! That nevertheless is a good move.


_________________________________________________________________ 1037 T127

There is a facility there to obviously approach the Chief Minister with regard to changes. He 8015 obviously listens and he does make changes – quite rapidly, I might add, when things begin to happen, and he has said, or at least his Ministers have certainly said tonight, that they are prepared to make changes as and when things do not actually work out. The trouble with hesitating too long, from the amendment point of view, is people will tend to pick and mix, and to pick and mix in items of this importance is a very dangerous thing to do. It does extend the debate, and debates 8020 get longer and longer. I think it is probably better to start off with a premise that this is how it is going to work and then we will go from there, rather than… The willing attempt to have a pick-and-mix idea of how it should be done is not a good way to go, really.

I have heard words about perhaps we are going to have new chief executives and new finance officers. If that was the case, I certainly would vote against it because it is certainly not necessary. 8025 We have got nine of them now, and nine of them are going to have to carry on and do, as far as I am concerned, what they are doing now, only in a different category.

We are all absolutely 100% behind the Department of Economic Development… I hope that is not another amendment coming round, but it looks as though it might be!

(Laughter) Is it just rectifying…? (A Member: Yes.) I smiled when I heard my colleague from 8030 Onchan saying, ‘I am going to support this amendment. I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but I am going to support it, anyway.’ I thought that was good. It is a case of look at the amendments, make your decisions but, either side, wherever it goes, people have said it is not set in stone either way.

I think we are all here for the benefit of the Isle of Man, and if we can make it work a lot 8035 better… It obviously needs sharpening and it needs a lot of work done in that Department. I have got an idea who is going to lead that Department. Nevertheless, that will be the Department at the sharp end of it and those are the people we will be expecting results of. I will wait to hear the summing up of the Chief Minister.

Thank you, Mr President. 8040 The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, talking to the amendment, or the two amendments, I think it is

important tonight that we realise… and, unfortunately, the junior colleague is not here to listen to 8045 this, but he talks about ‘real input’. The reason we have got these amendments here before us, and the reasons why we have got change, as far as agriculture is concerned, is nothing to do with the paid-up Members of this Hon. Court, it is to do with what is up there. That is what it is about and that is why we have seen the U-turn, as far as agriculture is concerned, and that is a sad reflection of how it is, as far as this parliamentary democracy is concerned. 8050

We have got two amendments here which brings this Court into a situation where we have got to have the Attorney General question the legality. The Speaker was quite right, as far as… Mr Lowey was quite right, as far as this is concerned.

As for Mr Bell, as I say, if he is so keen about his economic development, as far as Departments are concerned, he could have put an amendment here tonight and said that that 8055 should be there. But it is not full, out up here. I take exception to the remarks of some Members. I am in this place, next door, until 11 o’clock, many a night, trying to sort out and trying to put the parliamentary order into the system. These new amendments are an insult, an insult to the system of how we should be doing it. How dare the likes of the Treasury Minister tell us about being bold. Isn’t he the man who gave us the MEA? Isn’t he the man who helped us charge up with the User 8060 Agreement that we have never even seen, so that an Australian company ends up spending £200 million plus for that Agreement that we give for nothing. That is not in the way… That is the leadership he is on about.

Eaghtyrane, these amendments are not about the issues of pressure from in this Hon. Court and the Hon. Member, Mr Quirk, needs to wise up as far as that is concerned. These amendments are 8065 about because people outside this Hon. Court have said, ‘Enough is enough,’ and want some common sense, and for the Treasury Minister to pontificate about the issues of, ‘We have got to be decisive, as far…’ We have got no costings. We have no information. We have no implications, as far as this is concerned, and we have got no justification for common sense…

This Court needs to decide what it wants. We can talk about the decks on the Titanic, but today 8070 this debate has been more worrying about, not so much being the Titanic, but where is it ending up? Is it ending up in a West African republic? This debate today should be looking for a responsible parliamentary assembly holding a responsible Government to account. But what have we got here today? We have got the blind leading the blind, and I think that it is important that…


_________________________________________________________________ 1038 T127

I hope that this Court will support the amendment. I do not agree with the Hon. Member for 8075 Rushen on many of his points, but I do agree with one thing: I do agree that what we do not want is to add to the problems. We have had 20 years of economic boom – 20 years – and we still have £1½ billion-worth of public sector liabilities. We still have £100-odd million… We paid £130 million for a power station that was worth £30 million. We have seen the shenanigans as far as the gas pipeline, with all sorts of agendas. 8080

Hon. Members, let’s get some sort of order back into the system. Let’s not go blindly down, just because 31 of you voted for the Chief Minister. I actually support the Chief Minister, as far as economic development is concerned. I think that needs to be done as a priority. But just because you voted for him… You are supposed to be independent. You are not in a party. Just because you voted for him as Chief Minister, and whether that is because it happens to be very difficult for the 8085 few of us who are not…

I think it is important, Hon. Members, that when we talk about these amendments, what we should be worrying about is the level of taking notice of the Member of Council, Mr Lowey, about the reasons why we have Standing Orders, the reasons why there are facts of life, as far as democracy is concerned. I think we need no lecture from the Minister for Treasury, with the 8090 complete and utter travesty that if we had proper parliamentary accountability we would be in a far stronger fiscal position. Hon. Members, I think that what we will see tonight is… I hope we will start to see the wakening up, and I am delighted with the six new Members. It is about the different roles. There is a different role.

You might not be licking stamps in Departments of Government and having to go a party line 8095 on your Department. You have a role as important as being a Member of a Department. You might not get any money for it, but the fact of the matter is you want to have parliamentary accountability, and I believe that… Do not allow a situation to say that it does not mean that there could be, long before July, a motion in Tynwald by the Council of Ministers for that Department, but what it does mean is the very points that the Chairman of the Whitley Council, who said… and 8100 I understand his concerns with the likes of Mr Watterson’s proposals with privatisation, but the common sense of that… It does mean that we find out the real costs of this, but we have not got the real costs of this. This is so irresponsible. It is irresponsible and I believe that this Hon. Court should do the responsible thing. The seconder of Mr Gawne’s proposal summed it up perfectly, as far as this is concerned: it comes in on April 1st. That sums it up perfectly! Well, is this parliament 8105 going to be a supporter of April 1st tactics, as far as not holding the executive to account?

We talk about, in this Hon. Court, there are 23 now, independents, and one… Oh, sorry. Twenty-two independents. My colleague is a member of the Labour Party. I am, myself, in the Liberal Party. You are supposed to be 22 independents. I say to you that if you were in a company and we hear about Mr Bell’s plc… if you were a director of a company and you acted like we have 8110 seen this place act for far too long, then you would be debarred to be a director of a company. We have seen that too often.

I hope this Hon. Court will support the amendment and will not support the proposal, because it should not be here. This should not have been debated tonight if we had a proper parliamentary democracy and there was some value of it and most Members start to understand the importance 8115 of having an independent scrutiny on the executive.

The only sensible way forward would have been the amendment that did not get seconded, but we live in hope for some common sense to start coming about because the days of plenty are over – that is where I do agree with Mr Bell – and the days of us starting to not just have tally-ho, as far as… and we all vote together because we are all mates together and we do not expose each other, 8120 then we just get a bigger hole. This is an absurdity. This is an outrage. This defies common sense in any other walk of life. No costings. No implications.

I hope this Hon. Court will, for once, start making a stand for common sense and good governance.

8125 The President: Mr Shimmin, Hon. Member. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President. I, for one, Mr President, am content for your direction on the Standing Orders, unlike the

previous speaker, and certainly you will be guiding us as we go through the amendments. 8130 The Hon. Member for Onchan has been quite vitriolic in his condemnation of all of us, but his

comments regarding the parliament are quite right. The Government, through the Chief Minister, has come here today with a paper and we, as Tynwald Court, will determine how the Government is taking that forward. So there is a parliamentary role, and the Chief Minister has come forward and will sum up, and I will try not to steal much of his thunder. 8135


_________________________________________________________________ 1039 T127

I do understand very clearly the sensitivities and the anger and frustration of Hon. Members. The reason I am speaking at this late stage is for two reasons: firstly, because there has been misinformation garnered by a number of Members regarding the unification of the Council of Ministers on this matter; and, secondly, to try and expose some of the issues as to how we got to this position. 8140

I would remind my good friend in Council, Mr Lowey, to go back three years or more when there was a general election. Following that, there was an election for Chief Minister. Now, at that stage, the current Chief Minister was Speaker, and was seen to be parliamentary, rather than governmental at that stage. I, with others, put my name forward for Chief Minister – best job I never got, from my view as well as yours! (Laughter) But at that stage, those of you who did read 8145 the manifesto would see that, very much, I was putting it on a reforming agenda, based on the restructuring report by Robert Quayle and the others. Tynwald – not just for the reason of my manifesto, but personality and other choices – decided that there was not sufficient support.

At that stage, the Chief Minister now put his name forward, strongly supported by the Member of Council, Mr Lowey, as his man coming forward, and the right man at the right time, with the 8150 experience to take this forward. But at that time, it was not a particularly difficult time, politically. It might have seemed it then but, in hindsight, it was quite easy days, compared with what we have gone through in the last two years. There was no catalyst or reason, then, for Members of Tynwald or for Government to reform and restructure. There was no crisis; there was no burning bridge to try and actually mean that everybody would understand why we should go down a reformist route. 8155

I have been proud to be in the Chief Minister’s Council for over three years. We all know that he is firm and he is strong and he is dogmatic in a number of his policies and issues. I and others have a choice to stay in the Council of Ministers or not. Likewise, we in Tynwald have the ability to support or not, when he comes forward. But there is no doubting the sincerity, and one of the biggest issues I would ask you all to realise is that when the Chief Minister was elected, I do not 8160 believe he was naturally wanting to restructure Government. I was! We went together on the Governance Committee – smart move by the Chief Minister, putting me on to it, as well – and as the Member for Rushen, Mr Gill, has pointed out, there were several meetings. At those meetings, the Chief Minister would say, ‘What do you think about this?’ and I would tell him, then he would disagree and he won, having just had a mandate from 31 Members of Tynwald. I was not in a 8165 position to argue against that. We knew what he was going to be saying and I supported the right for him to do that.

As he said last week at the presentation, the fact is that we on the Governance Committee could talk all we liked – and we are very good at that in politics – but basically, we sent him away, saying, ‘Come on, then, tell us what you’re thinking! What is in your thoughts?’ Again, I would 8170 remind the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey, at one stage in recent months, he said now is the time to be a bit dictatorial. You have got to be a leader. (Mr Lowey: Benign dictator.) A benign dictator was the quotation. (Mr Lowey: Get it right!) So the Chief Minister came back and, as Mr Gill has pointed out, this was maybe two years after we had had regular meetings, and came forward with something which I, as much as any of you, when you received your papers on 8175 Sunday, was quite shocked at, to see the scale and depth of the proposals.

For somebody who is a reformist, I looked at this, and thought: ‘Hang on, I could have been really important in bringing this forward. I could have really contributed a great deal.’ I started looking at it and, within a matter of five or 10 minutes, despite my slight frustration, I realised that 90%, or more, of it I actually agreed with. I put my concerns to one side and thought: is this what 8180 is needed for the Isle of Man? From my point of view, despite the way in which it came forward, it is often better to have a committee of one to make decisions, rather than have a committee of 33 and try and get us all to agree with something.

So when the Chief Minister came forward with it, he was a convert, remember. He was not somebody who was, like me, instinctively going to reform, and he has done it not lightly, not 8185 solely, but because over the time that we have faced in the recent two years, particularly, there is a need to restructure. Our current position is not sustainable.

Once you start looking at the structure of the Government, and you also look at how complacent we have become, we know and we have talked often enough about all of the pillars of Government. The Chief Minister in the past has always supported the idea of strong leaders – one 8190 person – a Minister is the person responsible for that Department. So there is a real accountability and a responsibility. What has happened over the last two years particularly is the exposure that we are not getting it right, not just in the finance and the economic development department but in other areas of Government where, over 20 or 25 years, things have evolved and changed. We have nothing in some of our Departments for climate change. It had not been thought of 20 years ago. 8195


_________________________________________________________________ 1040 T127

The whole sustainability and environmental issues… The world has changed. The regulations, the international affairs, our status, our reputation, all of that has changed, but our system has not.

Quite often, Hon. Members talk about the pressures on Treasury, and there has been significant criticism in recent weeks about the increase in numbers in the Chief Secretary’s Office. I would ask Hon. Members who have been here some years to look back at the days of Fred Kissack and 8200 John Cashen, to look at the international issues we were dealing with in those days, and then to reflect on whether the structures we had then are adequate to still be in place generally today.

The international awareness that we need and the international and legal requirements mean that there has got to be a repositioning of some of our staff. So Hon. Members have a choice: that we either look towards the Chief Minister’s and say, ‘Yes, we support 90-plus per cent of that, we 8205 want it to be fluid and flexible, and try and say we will adapt it as we go forward; or do what we often do in politics – and I would say even more so in the Civil Service – and wait until we get it right, take some time, consult, get it right.

The problem is there is no right answer. In our world, there is not a right and a wrong; it is degrees. It is areas whereby… In any situation you can take opposing views, but particularly in 8210 politics. So there is not a right and a wrong answer, and we, so many times, are actually waiting to see if we can make it better. They do not do that in business. Look at the successful people in business. They start off with a vision, they move forward, and they adapt. Those of you who have been here many years know what it was like when the Isle of Man adapted quickly to change. Most of us youngsters who have been here that long have never had to be that flexible. We have 8215 found ourselves getting into a situation where the process becomes more important than the output, and my concern, Hon. Members, is that, with this, it is not perfect. If you wait for it to be perfect, we will not do it.

Another quote from the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill, talked about the effect on staff. I would urge you not to procrastinate on this, because the staff and their uncertainty is paramount in 8220 all of this. There are people with differing views in Departments and the Hon. Member for Rushen referred to my Department, where an officer, a director in my Department, said that the staff morale was at the lowest level ever. Now that is a worry for all of us in our positions and the uncertainty and procrastination will continue to make that worse. I would prefer to see it thrown out, than to be fudged and carried on for three or four months. (A Member: Hear, hear.) 8225

The reality for the members of staff is that, for many of them, it is uncertainty. We can give them that tonight. For other members of staff, it is genuine fear about their jobs because they do not see where they fit into the scheme of things and I have areas in my Department as much or more, I would suggest, than any other Department in these proposals, because you have all seen them and you have seen how DoLGE is moved into various different locations around the other 8230 Departments. So there is uncertainty, but there is also – and do not underestimate this – a great deal of energy from some of our senior managers, who realise that they need something to be imposed as a change to make it happen. I honestly think there is a flavour, both in the public sector and the private sector, to enhance and change Government.

The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, is the biggest critic of Government. You would 8235 have thought that there is a scope for change there, to improve things, and this will not get it right first time, but it will certainly shake-up a system to actually allow us to do some of the improvements that many of us believe are overdue.

The Hon. Member, and others, will say that it has not been costed out. I think, if we are honest, and if you look towards the Chief Minister, the Treasury Minister and others, both in politics and 8240 Civil Service, everybody realises we are in the biggest financial difficulties this Island has seen for a generation. As such, the impetus, on a daily and a weekly basis, is going to be there to drive down costs. This is not something which you can quantify on day one, before you set off on a journey, but rest assured that every one of us on that journey is aware that cost is going to be a major element and, unless you take the costs out, you will not be able to provide the service. 8245

So I apologise, Mr President, I also apologise, Chief Minister, if I have stolen any of your thunder, but it is important to try and realise, the Council of Ministers – although it was authored by the Chief Minister – had every opportunity to input, to talk, to discuss. We support this paper. We know it is not perfect. We want it to be flexible and adaptable, but we cannot afford to lose another few months whilst we try and find that there are lots of different views, most of which 8250 every one of us in this Chamber can predict. So we either move forward quickly…

You have a strong a Chief Minister. I would urge you tonight to think about giving him your trust, to actually say that it is not going to be easy but, by pulling together, there are improvements we can make. Thank you.

8255 The President: Mr Cannan.


_________________________________________________________________ 1041 T127

Mr Cannan: Mr President, I will not get involved in personalities. The issue on the Order Paper is the debate on the scope and structure of the Isle of Man Government, and that is a very, very important issue.

We are all here to represent the best interests of the people of the Isle of Man – otherwise we 8260 would not have been elected. Some of us have differing views. I supported, with vigour, the Budget yesterday, because there has to be economic development. I drove economic development, or was part of a team, from 1987 to 1989 – December 1989 – driving economic development, to get out of the difficulties of the first four years of the 1980s. I know the problems.

What we are talking about here is wholesale re-organisation of Government without proper 8265 consultation. I congratulate the Chief Minister on recognising the importance of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Department of Government, despite all he said against it only a week ago. There is nothing wrong in saying you are wrong. People respect you for that. In this issue, we are being asked to support the wholesale restructure of Government without any proper consultation, and then, when it is all set in motion, we will think about it, and try and change it. 8270

We have no costs. We do not know who will be in any Department. Chief executives do not know which Department they will go to and which Department they will not go to.

The prime example is the split between Health and Social Care. Is the present Chief Executive of the DHSS to remain in office in Health or to go into office in Social Care? There is re-organisation; there is cost; and we have no knowledge of anything. 8275

Now, going back to the importance of economic development, it can start tomorrow, because in the existing Departments – Isle of Man Finance – the implication is that up to now they have been doing nothing! They should be driving right now! The implication… Finance, manufacturing, Aircraft Register, Shipping Register, Mr Cretney is doing all these things now. Forming a Department of Economic Development is just collating it all together – collating all 8280 these economic activities together. They are listed here, to be collated into one Department. They are in various Departments, but they should be driving right now. To get a Department of Economic Development, it can be set up by March Tynwald and take immediate effect. But what is needed… You do not go into the change of whole structure without proper consultation, without informing Tynwald even of the cost, the method of reorganisation, the movement of officers from 8285 here to there; Planning which is in a Department, and Housing, they are going to split around – there is all this. It is easy to say they are minutiae. They should have been thought about at the time!

Mr President, we say that we all supported the Chief Minister’s nomination. I supported it – my own nomination was rejected – but I did not support everything in his manifesto. We support 8290 the Budget. You have the choice: you support the Budget in principle, but when item by item comes in… We have had this argument here before. Just because you supported the Budget in general, you support every tiny bit of it; that is not the case. Members – almost all Members – recognise that.

I recognise the Chief Minister as Chief Minister. I do not, and many Members do not, agree 8295 with every single thing that he proposes – otherwise we would have a dictatorship, if we were all to nod our heads.

So, what I am saying tonight – it is getting very late – caution, respect the document, it is a basis for very, very quickly having consultation with Members as to what should be done in the re-organisation. That is why I will be supporting Mr Watterson’s amendment. I do not agree with 8300 everything in there, any more than I agree with everything in here, but it is an amendment that gives time for reflection. If the Chief Minister respects other people’s views – and I know he does – and if Mr Watterson’s amendment is carried, I hope he will work to quickly sort out what should be done in the structure of Government and, in the meantime, form his Department of Economic Development. 8305

In the meantime… He shakes his head, sadly. I would hope that if the amendment carries, he will respect the will of Tynwald and co-operate and drive forward a structure of Government that is acceptable. In the meantime, let us get on with the Economic Development, and all the things that are listed here in Economic Development: Shipping Register, Aircraft Register, space commerce, e-business, e-gaming – drive them on now. Nothing to stop anybody – you do not stop 8310 driving the development of these industries on until a Department is formed. If you are in commercial business, you are driving all the time. If a bank is re-organising itself, it does not stop banking, while it is re-organising. It carries on the whole time.

My message tonight – and I hope Members will take it on board – is there is a case for re-organisation of Government. I congratulate the Chief Minister for already recognising that the 8315 Department of Agriculture was in the wrong place. I still hope that, if Mr Watterson’s amendment


_________________________________________________________________ 1042 T127

carries, there will be positive, prompt, immediate consultation to get the issue right, if not by the March Tynwald, certainly the April Tynwald.

Mr President the issue is before you tonight. I urge you to give Mr Watterson’s amendment your support, so that you have time for reflection and, in the meantime, the Chief Minister will 8320 energise – because, by implication, we need economic development to go forward – those in Departments that are listed under Economic Development to drive economic development forward. We need it desperately.

The President: Chief Minister to reply. 8325 The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Thank you, Mr President. First I would say I thank all Hon. Members who have taken time to input into the debate. I

think it has been helpful and I think, contrary to what has been indicated in the Court that, in fact, it demonstrates why Tynwald Court is here. 8330

I certainly never take Tynwald Court for granted: never have done, never will do. Certainly, my view is quite straightforward, and always has been – when I was Minister, or whether I’m Chief Minister – the job of Government is to look to take things forward and, when it has to, to come to Tynwald to make its case and Tynwald will decide whether or not it wishes to go down the road of what is proposed by, whether it is the Minister or whether it is the Chief Minister, as in 8335 this case.

Certainly – and I have said this to Hon. Members many times since I have been Chief Minister – it’s your decision, not mine. I have made mine! I have looked at this, I have spent a lot of time in looking at this. Here is what we believe is the way forward, whatever it may be and, in this case, it is this Report, and here’s what we believe is the way to move forward, taking into account all the 8340 different issues that are going on, and we hope that you will find that you can support that way forward.

Clearly, we have a number of differing views which have been put forward tonight. Mr President, one thing I’d like to cover first, I suppose, is the issue about the change in

relation to the Department where we have actually put in now – or are recommending – a change 8345 in relation to the Department of the Environment becoming the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture, and I make no apology whatsoever for listening to the points that were put to us and responding to that in a way that I believe was right, which myself and my colleagues did. I would hate to live in a democracy where we had a Chief Minister, or Ministers, who actually just said no, because they had made one decision and were not willing to make a change when, in fact, 8350 other evidence has been put to them.

But let me just explain why we ended up with the proposal which is in the document, which was the original proposal. One is I can now confirm that Ministers did discuss that at length. In fact, they discussed this whole Report at length. We had a special meeting to discuss it, in fact meetings, added to Council of Ministers’ meetings, to discuss these very issues because, clearly, it 8355 was important for Ministers to all be content that what was being proposed was, in fact, something they could go with. But I would refer Members back to the original Review and, as the Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin, said, I was somebody who, when I became Chief Minister, was not one for driving change in the structure of Government. I certainly made it clear my views on the scope, and they are still where they are and, that being said, I would remind Hon. 8360 Members that 25 of the 48 recommendations have actually been implemented.

So we have not just sat and done nothing: we have moved forward. Some of the issues that were put in there we clearly recognised the importance of, not only to the different areas of Government that we deal with but, in fact, to Government as a whole and, of course, importantly, to the public. But in the original document, and this is where we did – and if you look at what 8365 we’ve got – there are differences from the original document, but not a lot of differences in some areas. One of them was actually a proposal that they made, which was there should be Countryside, Heritage and Leisure. And in that Department of Countryside, Heritage and Leisure division that was issued in 2006 it had in that Department projected agriculture, fisheries, forestry, wildlife and conservation, coastline management, heritage transport and leisure. 8370

In our proposal that is in the document – but, of course, we have changed our mind now – we made some slight changes. One is we called it the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure, and that really evolves from our strategic document, where the community is very much at our centre of what we do. We believe that the centre of what we are endeavouring to do is to look after our community, and therefore it is natural to have a Department that looks after the 8375 community, and what was in that Department of Community, Culture and Leisure? – leisure, agriculture, animal health, forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation, protection of the


_________________________________________________________________ 1043 T127

countryside, trains and trams. Not a lot of difference and, after discussion, we came down to the view that they were not too far out in the original report and, therefore, we went with that aspect of it. Now, clearly, we have heard the concerns that were expressed and I come back to the point I 8380 have made, and I have said in answers to questions, it actually coincided – the day that was published, this is the Council of Ministers’ Report – with a meeting that had been arranged for me to talk to the southern farmers in the Viking Hotel that night. When I walked in, there was certainly a lot of production of the graph and I think nearly everybody there had copies of that in their hands. 8385

One of the first questions that I was asked by the vice Chairman of the NFU was why we had done and proposed what we had and dropped the name ‘Agriculture’, and I responded to that and they raised the issue about countryside, and I have got my note written down – I wrote the notes down – and what I responded to them was the issue that they’d raised about countryside, the issue of being in this Department with the others, I gave a commitment I would take that back to the 8390 Council of Ministers, and I would review their concerns alongside the reason we made our decision. And that is why we are now in the stage where, in fact, we agreed to rename the Department, transfer some of the functions that we are and put the agricultural side of it and fishery side of it where it is. And we deliberately put ‘Food’ in the title to cover fisheries, to cover the wider range of what goes on, because agriculture is clearly one side of an industry. Food and 8395 manufacturing, and all the things that go with that, are another side of it and then, of course, environment.

And, of course, we have a Department of Local Government and the Environment but, with the greatest respect, Mr President, when we did that – and I remember it well – when we did that back in ’86, it was because we said: ‘We think the environment is going to become more important, so 8400 let’s put that in the title.’ But I have to say, the amount of impact of what we have done and because things have changed so rapidly in the last five years, really, we have not been able to focus as much into our environmental issues as maybe we would like. And there is a need for us to be far more focused on the environment because it is going to affect us. We need to be more focused and have a Department that has a responsibility for climate change. So that’s why we had 8405 that Department put in there.

So, again, these issues have been thought out and I have to say, Mr President, if we all went away in a room and said to everybody, blank bit of paper, give us back a chart, every one of the members in this Hon. Court – who know quite a lot about how Government works – every one of us will have a different chart! Every one of us! We have got a chart already from the new 8410 Members, and I don’t have any criticism of that – that is what they are here for. They are here, like everybody else, to put in views. We have a chart from the local authority, Douglas Corporation. So we have already got two additional charts of differences, change of titles, change of functions and, with the greatest respect, there will always be lots of differences. It’s our job to say how do we move forward, if we think a change is required, and I would say to Hon. Members, even with the 8415 contributions you have made, the issue before you is: ‘Do you believe that we need to make a change to the structure of the Government, the departmental system and board system and how it all inter-relates, to move us forward for the next 10, 20 years, or whatever, because, let us not forget, somebody else will be in here in five, 10 or 15 years, who might say, “I want to restructure Government because it will meet the needs I want to take us forward in the future”.’ 8420

What I do know is – and it has been well spelt out here – is that everybody wants a Department of Economic Development. I am a convert on that, as well, by the way, because when we originally spoke about this, I was not so convinced, but as I got a better understanding of the situation, the one thing I was convinced of, Mr President, was we are not just going to change the title of Departments. In other words, we are not just going to change the Department of Trade and 8425 Industry to the Department of Economic Development, because what will that do? People outside will laugh at us, because it is just a change of a name.

If we are going to do it, let us do it right. If we are going to do it right, it has a knock-on effect, because we only have nine Departments. We have so many functions. As soon as you say, ‘we want a Department of Economic Development’ that brings together, under one Minister, one clear 8430 responsibility, with a Chief Executive who is responsible to the Minister, and then all the staff and that Minister responsible to the Chief Minister and Tynwald Court, then that is the only way you can do it.

We can mess about all we like. We have got presently a subcommittee of Council – an Economic Subcommittee. It has only been there a few months, but it involves three or four 8435 Ministers and some members who are not Ministers. But who is responsible? The Chairman is the Treasury Minister, but he reports to a subcommittee of the Council of Ministers and then through to the Council of Ministers, ultimately. But Ministers have to go off to their Departments, because


_________________________________________________________________ 1044 T127

what they are doing in that group, as it goes forward, and if we do not make a change, they will try and work together to make things happen a bit better than they are today. That will not resolve our 8440 problem.

If we are going to resolve our problem, we say, ‘what do we need to make us change to go forward in the future?’ Change is always very difficult, because we feel safe, we have a comfort zone at the moment and that is where we are. We are in our comfort zone, because we are used to the structure we have, we feel comfortable in it and, by the way, it works. It does work, but we 8445 cannot stand still.

One of the reasons why we cannot stand still is because we all know – and I hate using this, because it is said so many times – the world around us has changed. Unless we change with that world, and unless we give Government the tools to be able to deal with in that modern world, that changing world, we will be left behind. That is the reality, because we will be trying to work it out 8450 across all different Departments to make it happen. The answer is it will not happen; then, one day, somebody will make it happen because we would be, dare I say, potentially in a mess.

So why is it here now? Well, I can tell you, Hon. Members, we have been trying to deal with this since 2007, as was indicated in the Answer to the Question, to the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill. 8455

We have had, clearly, other priorities which are of far greater importance than restructuring Government, and that was survival… I think we have been pretty successful in securing our future and getting us to a stage where we can continue to keep moving forward, but that is another step. When you come down to the structure, it then got to a stage where… yes, we have done all that, and it became obvious we needed to restructure now if we are going to do it, because the honest 8460 answer is – I made this decision, and I talked to the Council of Ministers about it and they agreed: if we do not make the decision now, we will not make it.

That is the honest answer. We will run out of time, because the way that our year works, as politicians, the movement that is needed to make this change, we will just run out of time. Why? Again, I have made this point very clear to Hon. Members. If we agree this change this evening 8465 and the Orders are put in place, 1st April will kickstart the change. That is when it will start happening. But I have made it very clear it will then be a lot of work throughout the year to actually implement a lot of these changes. We are not looking at wholesale movement of staff from that office to the other office. We have not got the money to do that. It is much easier to move senior officers round to meetings where the Minister is and his team, to do their work. 8470

There might be some readjustments – we know that might happen – but not wholesale, and maybe that will come in the future, who knows, but what we do need to do is make sure we have a much better co-ordinated Government structure than we presently have. We can have the Ministers working together as much as we like. We have got to transmit that down, then, to the officers and get them working together as much as they like. I am sorry, Mr President, we all know 8475 the reality. If one officer in that Department, for whatever reason, is not in favour of the decision made by that Department, then it will slow down the process of making it happen, and we do not end up where we want to be.

One Minister responsible. That officer is responsible to that Minister, and that will make it happen! 8480

The other thing in the Report is that we are promoting a statutory provision that will give the authority to the Council of Ministers to exercise an authority, if they so wish or need to, to direct Departments to co-operate. That does not mean they have to co-operate if they have a different statutory responsibility. What it does mean is that you stop this situation of officers not working together, because there is a clear direction from Government. 8485

I would not underestimate how much we have changed since 2007 – December 2006. The strategic document Government produced has had a massive impact across Government in how we now deal with issues, and there is a lot more to do. We are going through difficult times. We have set out lots of different things to try and deal with that, to try and make us more efficient and more effective. There are real tasks ahead of us. This new structure will not only give us a new structure, 8490 which far better fits the purpose for today and the future, it will shake up Government. It will mean people will look in areas they do not normally look, because we are trying to rejuvenate Government to take us forward into the future. So they are side benefits to what will come out of this, and it will mean everybody will look at bit closer at it. So that is the basis of what we are doing. 8495

The issue about consultation is a very difficult one, because it is about the structure of Government. It is not about not wanting to involve Members. In fact, the very reason that we sent the document out in the way we did was to get it to Members as soon as we could, because we only finalised it on the Friday. It was printed off on the Friday and put into the envelopes. We did


_________________________________________________________________ 1045 T127

not put in the post on Friday night because we know some Members get their post at different 8500 times than others and some might not have got it until Monday. It is not a matter of being disrespectful to Members. It is not a matter of trying to ignore them. In fact, my letter that went out to Members made it very clear: I am available at any time to sit down and talk with you, to go through the bits of the Report or to try and answer any queries you may have. It might not be perfect, but it was the best way we could see to try and move this forward in a short time, because 8505 time is short.

We were wanting to get to Tynwald at this sitting, and therefore there are timescales not of our control as Government, but we have to meet to get it here. That is Tynwald’s time controls, not ours. So to meet that, we were trying to make sure that we gave Members as much time as possible. And I am sorry, if by getting it delivered three or four days before you would have got it 8510 through the normal process is seen as a criticism, I cannot answer that. It was a genuine move to make sure that Members had this important documentation before them. That is all I can say. I was not out to ignore Members; I was not out to be discourteous to them. It was to get the information in front of Members as soon as possible, so that we could then announce it to the staff at nine o’clock in the morning on the Monday, their first day at work that week, so staff knew what was 8515 going on.

That was all done to make sure that the staff were at least aware that this proposal was going to be put out to Tynwald in February. So all of these things were worked through to try and make sure, as best we could, we could do that. The one thing this is about is certainty. If we are not careful… and we know there are staff who are unsure, and always will be when we change things, 8520 but as much as we can give certainty, then the better it is for us, because we have to try and assist staff in terms of what they see from their side as what on earth are we up to, because they do not understand what we are trying to do. What we are trying to do, I think and I hope – and I would not be here if I did not believe it – is to make what we have get better.

Mr President, I think I would just make the point… I will try and answer a number of 8525 questions, and I hope Hon. Members will just be patient with me, because I am conscious of the late hour, but I do think this is an important matter, and I see it as very important, the issue of some of the points that were made, and the point of the amendments that have come forward. Just to respond to the Hon. Member for Rushen’s amendment, Mr Watterson, I would say to Hon. Members I really do think you need to be careful with that one, because it calls on Government to 8530 undertake consultation on the key features of all three documents. We go back to square one.

I am sorry, the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Butt, was absolutely right: we actually go back to square one. We moved on from square one. I do not dismiss the views of the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson, and his colleagues. They have a different point of view. That is fine. They have put it on paper. That is fine, because they came with something different. But I believe that 8535 what we have got here from Government is a way forward from those of us who will have to work within the system to make it happen and will have responsibility, that this will take us forward in a way that we believe is adequate and appropriate.

If Tynwald approves the Report today and the Orders, yes, we will be talking to staff then. Staff know certain aspects of what is going on, chief executives have been briefed. They have 8540 briefed some of their senior staff. What we have got to do is then start talking further down through with the staff, because then there is certainty. Our problem is how much do we talk to them, if we are not sure if this is going to happen? So what we want to do is get the decision, so we can start talking to our staff, putting their minds at ease because, from 1st April, that is when the change would happen. 8545

So there is a lead-in time, which allows us to deal with our staff in, hopefully, a professional way, to make sure they understand what is happening, to get from them – and there are already some staff going through some of this – to make sure that aspects of what are being put there are appropriate, with the best will in the world, to make sure that if there are any hiccups, we can pick those up. Somebody used the word ‘tweaking’ – I cannot remember who it was now – the Hon. 8550 Member, Mr Corkish. Yes, we will tweak; and can I say we always have. Ever since 1986, as I said, on at least three occasions we have made readjustments, because things have not been quite right.

Let us be honest, I do not know if this is a hundred per cent right, any more than anybody else. I do believe it will take us forward but it will only take us forward if there is the commitment and 8555 the will to actually make it happen. It will, if we approve it, start to mean we are going to have to not only do what we already have to do, but we have to prepare for a change which will come into effect from 1st April, and then build on that over the next year. So there will be issues that will require a lot of commitment and time from us all.


_________________________________________________________________ 1046 T127

Mr President, it is very difficult – so many things were said. I will try and pick out the main 8560 points, as I can, and if I do miss anything, I am not being discourteous to Members. It is really trying to pick up the main points as best I can, from the considerable notes I have.

Mr President, if I try and pick up on some of them: the relationship – can I just make the point, I think most Members, in one way, agree with it, but in another way are not sure whether to agree with it. I hope in a way that picks it up, because that is what comes across in the debate, and there 8565 are concerns.

Can I just say that the amendment that was moved by the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne, which I asked him to move, to be honest, I am quite happy without that amendment, but I did pick up from what was said by Hon. Members during the early part of this debate, and the concerns raised by Mr Speaker, that in fact there was some uncertainty. That amendment tries to 8570 give some certainty by saying, okay, if we want to be absolutely sure, add that amendment so you know where you are going. Personally, I do not have a problem, because if you approve the Report, then you will be asked to approve the Orders and then you will be asked to approve the Supplementary Order Paper, which, of course, creates the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture. 8575

A number of Members have said, ‘But how can you guarantee that you will get 16 votes?’ Well, of course, I cannot guarantee it. I could have left that till March. I did not think that was fair to the agricultural industry, because we have made our decision. I have given my commitment, but why not deal with it at this session? At the end of the day, again, picking up from Members over the last few days, every Member has said to me they agree with what we are suggesting for that 8580 Department. If they do, there should not be a problem getting 16 votes in the Keys and a majority of votes in the Council, and then we can make that decision, because suspension of Standing Orders is only to allow us to actually approve the Order. Why would anybody, unless they are totally opposed to this, actually oppose even doing that? It is a matter of us working our own system to get to where we want to be. 8585

I would hope, if Hon. Members approve the Report with the amendment from my hon. colleague for Rushen, Mr Gawne, then, in fact, we can move forward on to the regulations, which I can promise to be very short on, Mr President, albeit that they are complex. I think we have to accept the point that they are the regulations, and they do not take away at all our responsibility, but they are regulations that have been drafted up by Mr Attorney’s Chambers and we all know 8590 that we are reliant on legal jargon, as against us making the policy. Yes, to make it happen we have to approve the Orders so that we can actually move into that, and there has to be, again, a level of understanding that that has been done by the Attorney General’s Chambers. Yes, there might be some tweaking. We know there are already some odd bits we will have to tweak, but that is not a fundamental issue, because that is why we are here. We can put it right if there is an issue 8595 that we need to put right later on. What is important is to make sure the system works and works properly.

Mr Gill asked could I convince him why we should do it, and I hope part of my introduction in my reply has helped him to understand where we are coming from, why we are trying to do it. The delay between 2008 and 2010 I have explained. I was asked by my colleagues to go away and look 8600 at this because we were struggling through it, and other issues came in the way that we had not anticipated. To be blunt, protecting the economy of the Isle of Man and the future of our people was a far higher priority to me than restructuring Government, but we are now at a stage where we can take that forward, and therefore I believe it is the right thing to do.

The Hon. Member, Mr Butt, asked a couple of questions and I would just like to clarify those 8605 and again thank him for his contribution, because I do believe that he actually picked the mood of what it is about, as did a number of other Members, and actually saw what we are trying to do.

Again, the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Turner – his instant reaction compared with when he had actually looked at it further, and suddenly it starts to click together. I understand that difficulty. It is alright for me. I have spent a period of 18 months looking at this and going through 8610 it, and suddenly you are being asked if this is the way forward. So I appreciate the comments that came out.

I can confirm, and it is actually in the chart, that the issue of children’s shared responsibility is shared between the Department of Education and Children, the Department of Health, the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Social Care. So they are set out there. Clearly, 8615 we have to amend the Children’s Bill or the consultation Bill, if this is approved, to then make that happen. So, yes, they are fundamental to making this all happen.

Again, Mental Health: that will stay with Social Care, and people who have to go into hospital care will go into hospital care. We are not going to dismantle the work that is being done, which rightly was expanded on by the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Butt. 8620


_________________________________________________________________ 1047 T127

Flexibility: of course there is flexibility. It is in our hands. If we need to adjust and change things, then we can adjust and change things. I have said on a number of occasions, both at the briefings and in here, that this is not set in stone. Neither is the last structure, neither was the structure before. If we need to change it to make it more effective – and people who know me know what I am like – if it needs sorting out, I will come forward and try and sort it out. Whether I 8625 get support or not is another issue. But one of the things I hope I am, and I try to be, is a person who likes to get things done. I do try and drive things to get them to happen, to make them change. Sometimes I am successful and sometimes I am not, but I do not do any job to sit back and let things carry on as they were. I do not change things for change’s sake; I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. That is only in my own mind – everybody else might have a different 8630 mind; hence why we are all here.

I was asked by Mr Turner about the FSC and the IPA merger. My understanding is that that is with the Treasury, because the Treasury Minister has said he is going to look at that issue and will report, I think to Tynwald at some stage, on whether or not that should happen. We did not want to interfere in that process, because clearly that is an issue which will affect the industries out there, 8635 and I know that the Treasury are keen to consult with those industries in detail, because of how it could impact on them as an industry, different from what we are doing here.

The speed of decision, I hope I have covered, and if I have not, I apologise, but I do believe there is a window of opportunity for us here, to make a change which we can then start to build on. There are, I believe, many good things in here, in the new structure, which will actually be of 8640 considerable benefit, not only to Government as a structure, but in fact also to the people that we are trying to provide services to, and also will make them, I think, be far more focused, in certain areas, where it could be said they have been slightly diluted, because of the pressures overall on some of the Departments. I think that that would be clear.

Mr Speaker made reference this morning, and again this evening, about my quote in the New 8645 Year’s message, but of course, unfortunately what Mr Speaker did not mention was the preceding paragraph, which puts it into context. So Mr Speaker quotes the paragraph about the radical review being needed and debate across the Island; but the earlier paragraph says:

‘Looking forward we face fundamental questions about the structure, role and size of Government, its spending 8650 priorities and its sources of income, and these will be hard questions with hard answers’,

and then we go on to ‘such a radical…’, so quite clearly, if you take one paragraph out without the other, Mr Speaker is absolutely right. But if you put them together they flow one into the other.

What I was trying to say was there will be areas we need to deal with and consult with the 8655 public. We have already identified how to do that: we are going to go round the Island with presentations, if I use that term, to talk and listen to the public, to get ideas from them, get them to understand what the Government is doing and how we are trying to go forward. My hon. colleague, the Hon. Minister for Health and Social Security, did this last year, and it was very successful. We want to build on that. There is also another area of a new format of sitting down 8660 and talking to small groups, to try and have an opportunity for questions and answers about what we do and why we do it, and to get feedback, back through into Government. So there is no lack of will of doing that. That is what we are trying to do. So I hope that has clarified that, and certainly would.

As far as my answers to the questions in the House of Keys, when I was responding to 8665 Questions about the agricultural industry, I do not apologise for that. They were questions that were thrown at me straight from the floor. I responded on the basis – and I was very clear – I said there may well be conflicts of interest, if we put the agricultural industry into the Department of Environment. After that, and because I was conscious of wanting to discuss it with the Council of Ministers, I had asked for information as to whether or not there was a conflict of interest, if we 8670 put what is DAFF into that Department – sorry, joined it with the two Departments, if I use that term. I was told that, generally, it should be alright. There may be odd areas of conflict, and if there are, we will have to sort that out. So I was content, then, as was the Council of Ministers, that in fact there was not a really strong conflict, and therefore that change could happen.

Again, we are politicians. We react to answers. I am here to react to questions from Members, 8675 and, yes, we have prepared briefs, but we also get questions thrown at us that we are not prepared for and we give an answer. That is what politics is about. It does not mean, if we go back and find out different, that we should not change our mind, and clearly I was satisfied that we could make that change.

Mr President, just very quickly to try and, hopefully, answer any more… The Hon. Member of 8680 Council, Mrs Christian – and again I thank her for her support – was on about the primary need for


_________________________________________________________________ 1048 T127

us to have a Department of Economic Development. I fully agree with that and I think I have answered the point. Once you do that, you cannot do it in isolation because there is a knock-on effect, and if you are going to have a knock-on effect, you then might as well look at the whole structure to see how we can actually improve the situation we have. 8685

Energy policy: statutory policy will be, as far as I can see, with the Department of Economic Development, but in fact when you come down to the environmental issues on that, they would actually be in the Environment, so there are actually two aspects of energy that we need to deal with and they would be split there. Again, if it is not right, we will make that adjustment. I come back to the point that the chart that is before Hon. Members gives an indication of what is in there. 8690 It does not cover all the responsibilities because some are statutory, some are not, and they are very wide-ranging. I made the point at the briefing that we have pages and pages of it. It is just indicative of some of the main functions that we needed to do to make that happen.

Mr President, I would just thank Hon. Members – all Members – for their contribution towards the debate. I think it has been, albeit the late hour, generally… Well, not generally – I think it has 8695 been a good debate. I think that Members have clearly thought through their own thoughts on this. I do believe that it is a way forward. I am not saying at all just follow blindly where I am suggesting, because clearly that is not what Tynwald is about. You are here to make a decision because you believe it is the right decision to make. I am here because I believe what we are proposing is the right thing to do for the Isle of Man and I would ask you at least to think of that 8700 when you cast your vote.

This is about making Government more effective. This is about making Government more efficient, with a lot of other things that are going on as well. One thing I would say is, for goodness’ sake, give our staff certainty. Don’t create uncertainty; give them certainty. Either we are moving forward, or we are not. 8705

Mr President, I thank Hon. Members, and I beg to move, sir. The President: Hon. Members, the motion I put to the Court is that printed at Item 8 and to

that, Hon. Members, we have three amendments. Hon. Members, before I sort it out for you, as to how you are going to vote, I want to make it 8710

quite plain… Mr Karran, in his contribution, was making a comment about the Attorney giving advice on the legal question. I cannot recall whether Mr Karran was in the Chamber or out of the Chamber when, in effect, I was apologising to the Hon. Member from Rushen because, in fact, it was my query on whether or not the amendment, as originally drafted for Mr Gawne, was actually going to cause a conflict for the Court and it was getting that query cleared up, with the assistance 8715 of Mr Attorney, that I felt was important at that stage.

Hon. Members, the motion is that printed at Item 8 on the Order Paper. As I have told you, Hon. Members, you have three amendments. I propose to put to you, first, the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member, Mr Gawne, because that builds on the motion on the Order Paper. I would then, depending on whether you accept it or reject it, put the amendment in the name of the 8720 Hon. Member, Mr Crookall, because, depending again what you do with Mr Gawne’s, it either builds on it or not. The decision, Hon. Members, is yours.

Having dealt with those two amendments, Hon. Members, I will then deal with Mr Watterson’s amendment. I was asked that we should deal with Mr Watterson’s amendment in paragraphs. The way I will deal with that, Hon. Members, is to deal with paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. In each case, 8725 Hon. Members, the first paragraph and the last paragraph of the amendment will live, so when we reach Mr Watterson’s and I put to you number one, you will be voting on whether or not to accept calls on Government to undertake consultation on the key features of all three documents, acknowledging that the first paragraph and the last paragraph on that page stays.

At this stage I also want to make plain to you that, in fact, you have had circulated – I 8730 appreciate it is late and I appreciate the paper… but nevertheless you have had circulated an amendment which effectively says, on the very bottom, that Tynwald ‘no later than July’ rather than ‘no sooner than July’.

Hon Members, is everybody clear about the procedure which I am going to lead you through? Any queries? 8735

In that case, Hon. Members, the motion I put to the Court is printed at Item 8, Hon. Members, and to that I put to you, first, in the name of Mr Gawne, seconded by Mr Quayle, his amendment. Hon. Members, those in favour of Mr Gawne’s amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division is called… Now take your time, Hon. Members. Let us do it steady.

8740


_________________________________________________________________ 1049 T127

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows: In the Keys – Ayes 21, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Cannan Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mrs Craine Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment carries in the Keys: 21 votes for, 2 against. In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 1

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister Mr Lowey Mr Crowe Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, there are 8 for, 1 against, Hon. Members. Mr Gawne’s amendment therefore carries. That builds on the motion on your Order Paper.

I now put to you Mr Crookall’s amendment and accepting, on this occasion, that the wording was changed in line with Mr Gawne’s, which we did earlier, Hon. Members, I must point out to 8745 you similarly that we cannot change the order which will ultimately flow from the Supplementary Order Paper and, in fact, the wording is in conflict. Nevertheless, I put to you Mr Crookall’s amendment. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 8, Noes 15

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Earnshaw Mr Crookall Mr Karran Mr Cannan Mr Brown Mr Cregeen Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mrs Craine Mr Malarkey Mr Bell Mr Braidwood Mr Quayle Mr Gill Mr Teare Mr Houghton Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Gawne The Speaker


_________________________________________________________________ 1050 T127

The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment fails to carry: 8 votes for, 15 against. In the Council – Ayes 4, Noes 5

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister Mrs Christian Mr Crowe The Lord Bishop Mr Downie Mr Lowey Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, there were 4 for, and 5 against, Hon. Members. It similarly 8750 fails in the Council. Mr Crookall’s amendment fails to carry.

Now then, Hon. Members, we deal with the amendment in the name of Mr Watterson and seconded by the Hon. Member, Mr Henderson. As I have indicated, the first paragraph on your page and the final paragraph on your page stay at all times.

Hon. Members, I put it to you in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. 8755 First, Hon. Members, those in favour of paragraph 1. Please say aye; and against no. The ayes

have it.


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Earnshaw Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Cannan Mrs Craine Mr Cregeen Mr Bell Mr Henderson Mr Quayle Mr Malarkey Mr Teare Mr Corkish Mr Houghton Mr Watterson Mr Braidwood Mr Gill Mr Shimmin The Speaker Mr Cretney Mr Gawne

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion fails in the Keys, 11 votes for, 12 against. In the Council – Ayes 2, Noes 7

FOR AGAINST Mr Lowey Mr Callister Mr Waft Mr Crowe Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 2 for, 7 against. Part 1 fails, Hon. Members. I now put to you part 2. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. 8760



_________________________________________________________________ 1051 T127


The Speaker: Mr President, the motion fails in the Keys, 11 votes for, 12 against. In the Council – Ayes 0, Noes 9

FOR AGAINST None Mr Callister Mr Crowe Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, there were no votes for, 9 against. That part fails.

I now put to you part 3. Those in favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have it.


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Henderson Mr Earnshaw Mr Gawne Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mrs Craine Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries, 21 votes for, 2 against. 8765


_________________________________________________________________ 1052 T127

In the Council – Ayes 7, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister Mr Butt Mr Crowe Mr Turner Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Waft

The President: In the Council, 7 for, 2 against, Hon. Members. Part 3 therefore carries. I put to you Part 4. Those in favour, please say aye; and against no. The noes have it.



The Speaker: Mr President, the motion fails to carry: 11 votes for, 12 against. In the Council – Ayes 1, Noes 8

FOR AGAINST Mr Lowey Mr Callister Mr Crowe Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 1 for, 8 against, Hon. Members. Part 4 therefore fails to carry. Hon. Members, I now put to you the motion, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; 8770

against, no. The ayes have it. A division is called. (Interjections) Yes, you are voting for the whole thing, Hon. Members. In actual fact, the amendment of Mr

Watterson actually says – which you have accepted, in relation to Part 3, after the word Tynwald remove all words. That is what you are left with, Hon. Members.

8775 Mr Cannan: Sorry, Mr President, would you repeat that. The President: Hon. Members, the amendment, which is the resulting amendment following

your voting, is Mr Watterson’s amendment, part 3 (Interjections) complete with the final paragraph. (Interjections) 8780

Let us get that straight, Hon. Members. I do not want anybody to be in any doubt whatsoever. (Interjection) Mr Gawne’s amendment could build on the original motion. Mr Crookall’s could have built on the original motion. Mr Watterson’s amendment removes everything on the Order Paper after that ‘Tynwald’. So, in fact, what you are left with is Mr Watterson’s amendment, (Interjections) ‘that Tynwald…’ (Laughter) and then the first paragraph: 8785


_________________________________________________________________ 1053 T127

‘To leave out [all] the words after “Tynwald” and notes (a) the Council of Ministers Report on the Review of the Scope and Structure of the Isle of Man Government, (b) the Alternative Proposal in the name of Mr Watterson and others, dated 9th February and circulated to all Members, and (c) the original Review (published in September 2006); and 8790 3. supports the creation of a Department of Economic Development… and is of the opinion that when the consultation, assessment and analysis are collated, they should be published in a business proposal for approval [by Tynwald] no later than July [2010].’ That is what you are left with, Hon. Members. (Interjections) Those in favour, please say aye; 8795

against no. The ayes have it.


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Earnshaw Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Cannan Mrs Craine Mr Cregeen Mr Bell Mr Malarkey Mr Quayle Mr Corkish Mr Teare Mr Watterson Mr Houghton Mr Gill Mr Henderson The Speaker Mr Braidwood Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne

The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment fails to carry, 10 votes for, 13 against. In the Council – Ayes 2, Noes 7

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister Mr Crowe Mr Lowey Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 2 for, 7 against, Hon. Members. The motion fails to carry. Now, (Laughter) what next? 8800 Mr Gawne: The motion! The President: All I can, Hon. Members, if you like, is put the motion on the Order Paper. Mrs Christian: As amended. 8805 The President: Hon Members… As amended by? Several Members: Mr Gawne. (Interjections) 8810 The President: Right. The motion on the Order Paper, as amended by Mr Gawne’s

amendment, then, if you want to go that way round. (Several Members: Yes.) Hon. Members, please say aye; and against no. The ayes have it.


_________________________________________________________________ 1054 T127


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Cannan Mr Brown Mr Henderson Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mrs Craine Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries, 20 votes for, 3 against. 8815 In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 1

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister Mr Lowey Mr Crowe Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, 8 for, 1 against, Hon. Members. (Interjection by Mr Cannan) The motion, as amended with Mr Gawne’s amendment, therefore carries. Now, you have voted on it twice. Nevertheless, Hon. Members, I am sure that clarifies the issue.

Mr Cannan. 8820 Mr Cannan: Well, I just want clarification because you stated that we voted twice on Mr

Gawne – The President: You have. 8825 Mr Cannan: – but you stated, Mr President, that the final amendment was the one on which

we were to vote and then you changed your mind, sir. The President: Because, in fact, you could have voted on the motion on the Order Paper. 8830 Mr Watterson: We had not got to that! The President: Hon. Members, it has been a long day: it has been a long day. I am sure that,

no matter how we have arrived at the decision ultimately, (Interjection) that’s where we are. The motion has been approved. 8835


_________________________________________________________________ 1055 T127

Government Departments Act 1987 Statutory Boards Act 1987

Transfer of Functions (New Departments) Order 2010 approved

13. The Chief Minister to move: That the Transfer of Functions (New Departments) Order 2010 be approved [SD No 70/10] The President: Hon. Members, as I indicated, and as Mr Brown indicated, when, in fact, he

moved that we should sit on tonight, we would go on to Item 13. Chief Minister. 8840 The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Yes, thank you, Mr President, and I will keep it as brief as I

can, in terms that, before Hon. Members, is the Transfer of Functions (New Departments) Order 2010, which is set out on the Order Paper and I seek Tynwald’s approval now to bring into being, as from 1st April, the changes that Hon. Members have just approved in relation to the Report, sir. 8845

I beg to move. The President: Mr Anderson. (Laughter) Mr Anderson: I beg to second, sir. 8850 The President: Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Hon. Members, as late as it is, or as early as it is, I don’t care which way you want

to put it, we are being asked to vote on a series of Orders which no-one in this Court, with the 8855 greatest respect, apart from the Council of Ministers, has been able to study…

The President: Now, Mr Lowey, with respect, sir, you have had the statutory document 70/10

in your Tynwald pack ever since it was published. In fact, you are dealing with item 13 and statutory document 70/10, sir, that will follow after. 8860

Mr Lowey: I am premature, sir, and the lateness of the hour is affecting me! The President: Mr Karran. 8865 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would hope that, even at this late hour, we would see common

sense prevail, as far as this is concerned. I would hope… today must go down as the biggest travesty, as far as this Island is concerned, and if anything calls for some sort of independent commission into how we operate as a parliament and as a Government, then this last debate has to go down. We have four items on the last debate, and yet we ended up with five votes on it, as far 8870 as Mr Watterson’s position is concerned. I believe, Hon. Members, I hope, even at this late day, that we can break the block vote, as far as this nonsense is concerned. And I hope that Hon. Members will make sure that we do not see yet another travesty, as far as common sense is concerned, as far as this issue.

Eaghtyrane, if ever there has been a highlight of why we need parliamentary change, then this 8875 debate today and this item, such a serious item, and we have the Treasury Minister talking about responsibility; we’ve got no implications, it is the blind leading the blind. I think maybe my good friend next to me here is quite right when he was talking about the demise of the tourist industry, when you look at the way, the way we look at this… this operation in here, well, I have to be honest: if this Court votes for this, then I have decided that Florida should move to this Hon. 8880 Chamber because it is Disney World, as far as I am concerned!

Hon. Members, I believe that what we should be doing today is we should have been going for an adjournment now, as far as this issue is concerned, at 12:20 at night, to be talking about this issue and nod it in! I hope today that the people who are in this audience and the people who are still listening to this will now start waking up to the deep concerns that I have had for the last ten 8885 or fifteen years about how our procedures are going. If this Court wants to carry on, then fair enough, I can do nothing, but I move that there is an adjournment now to tomorrow morning. I hope that we will get that adjournment to tomorrow morning, as far as this issue is concerned, because I think, especially after the last vote, there are too many people have been here too long to


_________________________________________________________________ 1056 T127

see what is right and I hope that someone will support my adjournment, as far as this debate is 8890 concerned.

The President: Can I make it plain, Hon. Members, that you did have a debate earlier for an

adjournment and you agreed that we would sit to finish Items 8 and 13. Mr Watterson. 8895 Mr Watterson: Mr President, contrary to the last speaker, I believe that those who found fault

in the Chief Minister’s plans have had their say. It has been a long debate, a good debate and for those of us who did not think they were good enough, well, we have been beaten. I think that now is the time that Members of Tynwald have to rally together and show the general public that this 8900 plan can work, that it must work and we are willing, as a body, and when we go back to whatever Departments we are sent to under the new regime, that we can make it work and we can do our bit for the Isle of Man in the structure that we are left with, sir.

Members: Hear, hear. 8905 The President: Mr Callister. Mr Callister: Just that I would like to say, we will not adjourn till tomorrow because that

would be Friday, Mr President! (Laughter) 8910 The President: Mr Quayle. Mr Quayle: Yes, just briefly, Mr President, to say that with the main motion having been so

comfortably voted through, then it would only be logical to now vote for this particular Item on 8915 the Order Paper, because it will now bring into effect the transfer of functions to the Departments now to be dealt with from 1st April.

The President: Chief Minister to reply. 8920 The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I think, just so it is clear, what we are talking about here is putting into place the legal Orders,

the transfer functions. They are orders that are formulated by Her Majesty’s Attorney General’s Chambers and, for example, it says in one section: in section 4.6 for the Department of Transport to be subsumed to the Department of Infrastructure. It is making the functions transfer, so we can 8925 actually run the Government from 1st April.

The policy we have debated, I think we need to get on with it. Again, we have had this for a period of time. I will explain it when we get it and, hopefully, we have a suspension, but just from the public perception point of view, these are legal Orders to put into place what we have decided in the previous votes and I hope Members will support us. 8930

The President: Hon. Members, the motion that I put to the Court is that printed at Item 13 on

your Order Paper. Those in favour, please say aye, against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


_________________________________________________________________ 1057 T127

In the Keys – Ayes 21, Noes 2

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Henderson Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mrs Craine Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries 21 votes for, 2 against. In the Council – Ayes 9, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister None Mr Crowe Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner

The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, there were 9 for, none against. Item 13 8935

therefore carries. Hon. Members, it was inevitable – inevitable – when you have what was virtually a 12-12

situation within the Court, that things would get anxious and that there would be division and there would be the objection from one side or the other. Nevertheless, Hon. Members, Tynwald Court has made its decision. Tynwald Court will pick it up and move on from there, I hope in a united 8940 front.

Hon. Members, when we resume our deliberations tomorrow – The Chief Minister: Sorry, Mr President, the Supplementary Orders, so we can tidy that up, if

that is – 8945 The President: No, sir, I was going to tidy that up in the morning because there will be a

query, I have no doubt. We will tidy up the… The Supplementary Order Paper will be the first business at half past ten

in the morning, Hon. Members. Thank you. 8950 Safe journey home, one and all.

The Court adjourned at 12.26 a.m.

10 Tyn Final Wed 17 Feb (FOR IAN) · Manx Heritage Foundation accounts – Qualification by...

Documents

Transcript of 10 Tyn Final Wed 17 Feb (FOR IAN) · Manx Heritage Foundation accounts – Qualification by...