(HANSARD) Douglas, Tuesday, 17th January 2006 · 578 T123 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006...

Published by the Offi ce of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. © Court of Tynwald, 2006Printed by The Copy Shop Limited, 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man

Price Band G

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 LQ U A I Y L T I N V A A L

P R O C E E D I N G SD A A L T Y N

(HANSARD)

Douglas, Tuesday, 17th January 2006

Volume 123, No. 9 ISSN 1742-2256Volume 123, No. 9 ISSN 1742-2256

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006578 T123

Present:The President of Tynwald (The Hon. N Q Cringle)

In the Council: The Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man (The Rt. Rev. Graeme Knowles), The Attorney General (Mr W J H Corlett QC),

Mr D Butt, Mrs C M Christian, Mrs P M Crowe, Hon. A F Downie, The Chief Minister (Hon. D J Gelling CBE), Mr E G Lowey, Mr L Singer and Mr G H Waft, with Mrs M Cullen, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald.

In the Keys: The Speaker (The Hon. J A Brown)(Castletown); Hon. D M Anderson (Glenfaba);

Hon. A R Bell and Mrs A V Craine (Ramsey); Mr W E Teare (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Mrs H Hannan (Peel); Hon. S C Rodan (Garff); Mr P Karran, Mr R K Corkill and Mr A J Earnshaw (Onchan); Mr G M Quayle (Middle);

Mr J R Houghton and Mr R W Henderson (Douglas North); Hon. D C Cretney and Mr A C Duggan (Douglas South);Hon. R P Braidwood (Douglas East); Hon. J P Shimmin and Mr D F K Delaney (Douglas West);

Capt. A C Douglas (Malew and Santon); Hon. J Rimington, Mr Q B Gill and Hon. P A Gawne (Rushen); with Mr M Cornwell-Kelly, Clerk of Tynwald.

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006 579 T123

Prayers .................................................................................................................................................................................. 581Good wishes for the New Year; thanks to TMC – Statement by the President ...................................................................Good wishes for the New Year; thanks to TMC – Statement by the President ...................................................................Good wishes for the New Year; thanks to TMC – Statement by the President 581Leave of absence granted ..................................................................................................................................................... 581Papers laid before the Court ................................................................................................................................................ 581

Questions for Oral Answer1. MEA investigation – Government agency responsible ............................................................................................ 5822. Illegal immigrants/workers 2004-05 – Numbers and prosecuted employers ........................................................... 5833. Public Register of Members ̓Interests – Introduction of Registrar .........................................................................3. Public Register of Members ̓Interests – Introduction of Registrar .........................................................................3. Public Register of Members ̓Interests – Introduction of Registrar 5854. Change of title of Lieutenant-Governor – Department of Constitutional Affairs ̓response ................................... 586

Welcome to the Rev. Norman Wallwork .............................................................................................................................. 587

5. People paid less than minimum wage – Rectifying situation ................................................................................... 5876. Non-active bank accounts – Introduction of legislation ........................................................................................... 5897. Investment properties/holiday homes – Introduction of levy ................................................................................... 5908. Manx Cable Company loans – Contingency plans for reclaim/repayment ..............................................................8. Manx Cable Company loans – Contingency plans for reclaim/repayment ..............................................................8. Manx Cable Company loans – Contingency plans for reclaim/repayment 5919. Manx Cable Company loans – Commencement of proceedings and legal costs ..................................................... 59210. Manx Cable Company loans court case – Effect on Select Committee work .......................................................... 59211. Car licence fee supplement – Revenue raised .......................................................................................................... 59312. Chester Street car park – Night-time security .......................................................................................................... 59413. Developments not adhering to plans – Protecting neighbouring properties ............................................................ 59514. Crescent Leisure Centre – Inspections of registered building .................................................................................. 59815. DHSS savings – Cutting services, supplies or medicines ........................................................................................ 59816. Death in care home – Measures taken by DHSS ..................................................................................................... 59917. Heating allowance for UK pensioners in Island – Fight against ʻinjustice ̓............................................................. 60018. Langness fencing – Costs and time taken to answer questions ................................................................................ 60119. PAC Scrutiny Committee – Expected date of Report to Tynwald ........................................................................... 60320. Langness footpaths – Government steps to resolve situation .................................................................................. 60321. Glashen/Crossag proposed development – Current position ................................................................................... 606

Questions for Written Answer22. Crossag Farm, Ballasalla – Situation re land transactions ....................................................................................... 60923. Internet ʻim ̓domain name – Regulation and control .............................................................................................. 61024. Boundary Review Committee Interim Report – Full cost ........................................................................................24. Boundary Review Committee Interim Report – Full cost ........................................................................................24. Boundary Review Committee Interim Report – Full cost 61025. Marine Drive – Plans to re-open .............................................................................................................................. 61126. Incinerator – Emissions and hours of operation ....................................................................................................... 61127. European Health Insurance Cards – Situation for Isle of Man residents ................................................................. 612

The Court adjourned at 1.08 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

Orders of the Day4. Select Committee on 5 The Parade, Castletown – Statement by the Caairliagh ........................................................... 6133. Select Committee on DoLGE Expenditure: Supplementary Vote – Statement by the Chairman .................................. 6135. Island-wide maximum speed limit – Statement by the Transport Minister ...................................................................5. Island-wide maximum speed limit – Statement by the Transport Minister ...................................................................5. Island-wide maximum speed limit – Statement by the Transport Minister 613

Business transacted Page


Procedural ............................................................................................................................................................................ 614

6. Satellite and space industry – Expenditure approved .................................................................................................... 6157. Ramsey Grammar School Post 16/Medway Block – Expenditure approved ................................................................ 6188. Fire Certifi cation Works to Schools – Phase 1 – Expenditure approved ....................................................................... 6209. Disabled Access Works to Schools – Phase 1 – Expenditure approved ........................................................................ 62010. DHSS supplementary vote – Debate commenced ......................................................................................................... 623

The Court adjourned at 4.46 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 5.15 p.m.

DHSS supplementary vote – Debate continued – Motion carried ................................................................................. 631

Island-wide maximum speed limit – Questions on Transport Ministerʼs Statement ...........................................................Island-wide maximum speed limit – Questions on Transport Ministerʼs Statement ...........................................................Island-wide maximum speed limit – Questions on Transport Ministerʼs Statement 645

Procedural ............................................................................................................................................................................ 649

14. European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 European Communities (Food Safety Law) (Application) Order 2006 approved ............................................................................................................................... 65015. European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 – European Communities (Uzbekistan Sanctions) (Application) Order 2005 approved ............................................................................................................................... 652

Procedural ............................................................................................................................................................................ 652

The Council withdrew.

House of Keys1. Bills for First Reading – Minerals (Amendment) Bill Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill Public Health (Tobacco) Bill Insurance Companies (Amalgamation) Bill ............................................................................................................. 653

The House adjourned at 8.02 p.m.

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 s̓ Offi ce,

Legislative Buildings, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 3PW.

All published Offi cial Reports can be accessed on the Tynwald websitewww.tynwald.org.im

Offi cial Papers/Hansards – please select a year


Prayers : Good wishes for the New Year; thanks to TMC – Statement by the PresidentLeave of absence granted

Papers laid before the Court

Papers Laid

TynwaldThe Court met at 10.30 a.m.

[MR PRESIDENT in the Chair]

PRAYERSThe Lord Bishop

In the fi rst sitting of this Hon. Court in the New Year, we pray for the year that lies before us. Grant, Lord, that, as the years change, we may fi nd rest in your eternal

changelessness. May we go forward into this year with courage, sure in the faith that, while life changes around us, you are always the same, guiding us with your wisdom and protecting us with your love. So may the peace which passes all understanding keep our hearts and minds, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Members: Amen.

Good wishes for the New Year; thanks to TMCStatement by the President

The President: Hon. Members, may I welcome you, also, to the fi rst sitting of this Hon. Court in the New Year and wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year, with plenty of positive things to go at, and less negativity than, maybe, we had in 2005. (Members: Hear, hear.)

As Hon. Members will know, this will be the last sitting of the Court in our temporary Chamber. Next month, we will expect to resume our sittings in our own home, in our usual location.

Setting aside, Hon. Members, the question of the delays which have occurred in this project, I think it is right that we should acknowledge the considerable extra burden of work which the refurbishment project has placed and continues to place on Mr Speaker and the Tynwald Management Committee on our behalf.

Mrs Hannan: Hear, hear.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE GRANTED

The President: Hon. Members, I have granted leave of absence to the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell, for this sitting. The Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin, telephoned in this morning: he is not feeling too well and hopes to join us later, Hon. Members.

Papers laid before the Court

The President: I call upon the Clerk to lay papers.

The Clerk: Mr President, I lay before the Court the papers listed at Item 1 of the Order Paper:

European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 –European Communities (Food Safety Law) (Application) Order 2006 [draft]European Communities (Uzbekistan Sanctions) (Application) Order 2005 [SD No 902/05]

Financial Supervision Act 1988 –Financial Supervision (Authorised Persons) (Custodians of Experienced Investor Funds) Regulations 2005 [SD No 884/05]

Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1986 –Excise Duties Order 2005 [SD No 879/05]

Value Added Tax Act 1996 –Value Added Tax (Gaming Machines) Order 2005 [SD No 880/05]

Beef Cow (Amendment) Scheme 2005 –Beef Cow (Amendment) Scheme 2005 [GC No 49/05]

Inland Fisheries Act 1976 –Inland Fisheries (Duties) Regulations 2005 [SD No 890/05]

Social Security Act 2000 –Social Security Legislation (Application) (No. 12) Order 2005 [SD No 866/05]

Medicines Act 2003 –Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 2005 [SD No 294/05]Medicines for Human Use Regulations 2005 [SD No 9/05]Medicines (General Sales List) Regulations 2005 [SD No 10/05]Medicines (Sale or Supply) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2005 [SD No 12/05]Medicines (Pharmacy and General Sale – Exemption) Regulations 2005 [SD No 13/05]Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Regulations 2005 [SD No 11/05]

ReportsCouncil of Ministers ̓Report on the Strategic Direction of the Isle of Man Post Offi ceInterim Report of the Boundary Review Committee 19th December 2005Waste Management Strategy Report

Note: The following items are not the subject of motions on the Order Paper

Burials Act 1986 –Burial Fees Resolution 2005 [SD No 865/05]

European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 –Uzbekistan Sanctions Regulations 2005 [SD No 903/05]

Advocates Act 1995 –Advocates (Prescribed Fees) Regulations 2005 [SD No 848/05]

European Communities –EC Secondary Legislation – December 2005 [GC No 50/05]


MEA investigation – Government agency responsible

Oral Answers

Questions for Oral Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

MEA investigationGovernment agency responsible

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

Which Department or agency of Government is charged directly to investigate and report on the MEA saga, leading up to and including the reporting of the affairs publicly?

The President: Now, Hon. Members, we turn to our Question Paper, and I call upon the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

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

The Chief Minister (Mr Gelling): Yes, thank you, Mr President.

No Department or agency of Government is charged directly to investigate and report on what the Hon. Member terms the MEA ʻsagaʼ.

There is a Select Committee of Tynwald which has been charged with that task, and the Government will do its best to assist that Select Committee to carry out its remit.

Indeed, Mr President, I believe it is important, in the interests of transparency, that it is not Government itself which looks into this matter, but rather an independent body, such as has been set up already by this Hon. Court, sir.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that it is rather concerning, if not scandalous, outside this Hon. Court that here we have a situation where these systems of Government have blatantly failed and no-one in Government is looking at the ways the systems of Government blatantly failed, with the DTI responsible, with the Treasury supposedly concerned over fi nancial management, that we have ended up with a £½ billion affair?

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President.Of course, what I would want to remind the Hon. Member

and the Hon. Members of the Court is that Select Committee, although it is limited to what it can do, certainly in a meeting of the Tynwald Court in December, the Hon. Mr Speaker, in addressing the situation, did say that they were continuing the documentary aspects of the investigation as far as they could – in other words, making sure that they did not infringe in any way to make public statements in respect of the very narrow area which could very well be before the courts.

So, therefore, I want to assure the Hon. Member and the

public that, of course, the DTI still has the responsibilities for that particular area of the MEA that they do have and the Treasury, likewise, with the fi nancial.

Certainly, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that things have not just stopped, that your Select Committee will continue to take evidence and document all that evidence in a way that they are then able to carry out the full report, and report, as the Hon. Member has asked, publicly, in a way that has been done by an independent parliamentary body, sir.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree with me that not

charging a particular agent or agents within his Government to investigate this matter is tantamount to a complete negligence of duties and accountability to the public of this Isle of Man?

Would he further agree with me that offsetting it to a Tynwald Select Committee is not the way to go, and that Select Committee is not part of Government?


The Chief Minister: No to both questions, sir.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that the Select Committee is not actually looking at going back to the likes of 1997, when the systems of Government must have failed, in the fact that you sacked the whole board of the MEA and replaced it with a board that had no experience?

Would he not agree that someone in the executive Government should be looking into the situation of why the systems of his administration, of the executive of this nation, have failed the people of the Isle of Man?

Would he also not agree that I believe there is no-one in this Court ever believed that, by agreeing to this terrible affair, we would end up in the state we are? Would he not agree it is viewed, at least, as complacent outside this Hon. Court and, by others, it looks like it is just a matter of you are hoping –

The President: Hon. Member!

Mr Karran: – your administration is hoping, it will go away?


The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Well, of course, if we go back to the time the Hon.

Member is suggesting that the board was sacked, the board came to a natural conclusion of their term and, of course, a suggestion was put to this Court. It was Tynwald that sanctioned the new members of the MEA board. It was a new board and, as I say, it was Tynwald that sanctioned that.

The old board was not, as the Hon. Member, says, ʻsacked ̓and, certainly, the systems of Government that are in place: again, I would suggest to the Hon. Member, no matter what systems are in Government, there is always the odd – and I am glad to say, ʻodd ̓– occasion, that even the


MEA investigation – Government agency responsibleIllegal immigrants/workers 2004-05 – Numbers and prosecuted employers

systems of Government do not stop things happening.That is as far as I would like to make any statement on

that, at the moment, Mr President.

The President: Mr Delaney, Hon. Member.

Mr Delaney: A quick supplementary, Mr President. On the Answer just given by the Chief Minister, would he

not agree with me, whether this Tynwald Court sanctioned… would he tell the Court and, through the Court, the people: who nominated the persons who are on the board of…?

Mr Cannan: Yes, hear, hear.


The Chief Minister: Yes, the Council of Ministers, on the recommendation of the DTI of the day, would put them on the fl oor of Tynwald, but nevertheless, I would conclude that Tynwald had the option of agreeing with them or otherwise, sir.

The President: A fi nal supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, a supplementary.Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree, the systems of

Government going back to 1997, obviously, must have failed, when we threw out a board which had experience in the industry and replaced it by a board which had virtually no experience, but just showed patronage of the system that was there?

Would he, also, not agree with the fact that the chief executive was then replaced at a later date with a hotel proprietor s̓ accountant from North America and you actually changed the law?

The Speaker: Heʼs a Manxman.

Mr Karran: Would you not agree that your Departments of Government – some department of Government – should be looking at why this happened, and to make sure that systems do not allow this situation of the ʻEmperor with no clothes ̓happening again?


The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President.Well, fi rst of all, the gentleman from North America,

of course, I think he refers to, was a Manxman, born and educated in the Isle of Man –

Mr Karran: They changed the law to get him the job.

The Chief Minister: But if I can go back to the systems: Mr President, the system is there, quite clear, and it is a system that has been in place for a long, long time. That is: people are recommended by the Department of Trade, who are the people who know about people around the Island who could very well fi ll these positions. It then comes to the Council of Ministers. Then it comes to this Hon. Court.

Now, Mr President, that is a system that should make sure that we get the right people in the right places at the right time, sir.

Illegal immigrants/workers 2004-05Numbers and prosecuted employers

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

(1) In the last two calendar years 2004 and 2005, how many persons resided or remained in the Island without leave to enter;(2) how many of these persons were working without work permits; and(3) how many prosecutions were brought against the employers who employed them?

The President: Question 2, Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Delaney.

Mr Delaney: Mr President, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.



This is a question which I know is of concern to the Hon. Member, because I know the time that the Hon. Member spends in this particular area on immigration and people coming to our Island. So, therefore, in answer, virtually, to the questions, it is not possible for the Immigration Offi ce to maintain fi gures of the number of people who reside or remain in the Isle of Man without leave to enter, and the very fact that any such people do not have leave to enter or leave to remain would indicate that they do not make themselves known to the immigration authorities.

However, I am sure that the information the Hon. Member is seeking is in relation to the number of persons against whom the Immigration Offi ce has taken enforcement action, and if so, I can advise that, in 2004, there were nine cases, and in 2005 there were 16 cases.

Moving on to the second part, Mr President, for the benefi t of the Court, I would like to clarify that the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for work permits, not the Immigration Offi ce. However, I can advise the Hon. Member that, of the 25 people identifi ed in 2004-05, 15 did not have a work permit.

On to number (3), I understand from the Department of Trade and Industry that, to date, no employers have been prosecuted for employing persons without leave to enter or remain, sir.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Delaney.

Mr Delaney: I thank the Chief Minister for the comprehensive Answer.

Bearing in mind that the fi rst part of my Question, Chief Minister, states ʻwithout leave to enterʼ, and the only way we can identify them, would he not agree with me, is after they are captured or caught, the fact that we have 25, in those two calendar years I refer to, makes it a situation where, every year, where I have pursued this matter, the numbers of persons caught has increased, as you have already identifi ed over even two years, which leaves Members that think about it, and us in general, the idea that this problem is getting worse, not getting better?

Oral Answers

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006584 T123 Oral Answers

Illegal immigrants/workers 2004-05 – Numbers and prosecuted employers

Could I get the Chief Minister to agree with me, if that is not the case?

Bearing in mind, Chief Minister, on a further Question I asked you, in relation to work permits, you are now changing the law, and I have been notifi ed to that effect, is it not time that in the existing law, where persons who are found with these people in their employ, who have no leave to enter, are not pursued by the Industry Department… rather than take the case of a question where they answered me that they do not prosecute, in the fi rst instance, which seems to me a ludicrous way to run the law?


The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President, and yes, the numbers have increased.

The point I think I would like to stress, straight away, is: why have their numbers increased? The Hon. Member says it is obvious, because the problem is getting worse.

I would like to actually introduce into that the fact that we had our fi rst Immigration Enforcement Offi cer employed for regular proactive action. That was in April 2003. So, I would like to think, also, that having an offi cer who was actually being proactive, and going out and looking, could also have assisted in that particular area.

Now, the Hon. Member says it is a problem. Now, it depends what that problem might be. The problem is that they can enter the Isle of Man, if, of course, they are in the travel area of the United Kingdom. However, they do have to get a work permit, if they actually stay here to work.

The only time that the authorities will come across those people is when they apply to the Immigration Offi ce to actually fi nd out whether they can stay here. So, therefore, there will be a number. I know, in the United Kingdom, they are stating there are numbers of people there, and they do not know how many there are, who are there illegally, because they are not known.

Coming back, then, to the last question, Mr President, about employing: if somebody employs someone and they have not got a work permit, the law states, I think, that harbouring is an offence; but employing somebody is not an offence. So, therefore, they could be taken to task, if they were harbouring that person – in other words, hiding them away from the authorities or whatever, or disguising the fact that they were there – but it is not an offence to actually employ somebody who is, by reason of being illegal, without a work permit.


Mr Delaney: To stop any more confusion, can I ask the Chief Minister this: is it not a fact that every person who works in the Isle of Man should be known about to the Social Security in relation to having a stamp paid for them, or a payment made under the Social Security Act, and is it not a fact, Chief Minister, that we have a situation here where persons are now in our prison who claim they cannot speak any English?

Is the Chief Minister trying to indicate to us, in the Isle of Man, that they come from half way around the world with the intention of staying in the Isle of Man? Somebody has to have bought them a ticket to get here, or advise them to come here. They did not just turn up here after getting an Isle of Man holiday brochure.

The situation, Chief Minister, would you not agree with me, is getting worse. I am aware that you are conscious of the concern I have, but is it also not a fact that when this new offi cer was employed, he was employed after I asked the original Question, dealing with immigrants?


The Chief Minister: Yes, we also, if I could just say, had a cap, as well as everybody else in all Departments, on members of staff, but I take the point from the Hon. Member.

The point of the people getting here, of course, if they are travelling in the United Kingdom and they have been able to get into the United Kingdom, there is nothing whatsoever to stop them coming to the Isle of Man as a visitor, or whatever, by getting on the boat and buying a ticket.

The fact is, I repeat, Mr President, that unless, when they get here, they notify either Social Security or go somewhere to try to get established for some income, or go to our Immigration Authority, they could actually be in the Isle of Man, unknown to any authority here. So, therefore, there is nothing really that we can do until we identify them.

I would hope that this offi cer that we have now in place, who, actually, is taking up a lot of training also off-Island, in immigration offi ces across, will be able to identify some of these, before they get established in the Isle of Man illegally.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. Can the Chief Minister tell us how many of these people

that are found by his enforcement offi cers are to be asylum seekers, who would not be treated as illegal immigrants, as far as the Question is concerned? How many?

Do we know how many asylum seekers, who do have access, temporary residence, in the United Kingdom, do we have in residence in the Isle of Man?


The Chief Minister: Now, whether or not they would come as far as the Isle of Man to seek asylum is one question –

Mr Houghton: Not the question. (Interjection)

The Chief Minister: – but, basically, the answer to the Hon. Member is I have not got that information, for the simple reason – I will try to get it for Members – whether or not we have got those statistics, I am not sure at this time, sir.

The President: Hon. Member for Michael.

Mr Cannan: The Chief Minister has acknowledged that we have illegal persons in the Isle of Man who are in work without work permits.

Are the employers also going to be prosecuted by Departments of Government (A Member: Hear, hear.) for failing to notify the Department of Social Security, in terms of their national insurance stamp and failing to fi ll in returns to the Treasury in respect of income tax, ITIP?

Will the Chief Minister, please, accept responsibility

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006 585 T123Oral Answers

Illegal immigrants/workers 2004-05 – Numbers and prosecuted employersPublic Register of Members’ Interests – Introduction of Registrar

when things go wrong, particularly in the previous Question, when he declined to accept responsibility – ?

The President: Hon. Member. The Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister: Yes, I take the responsibility, Mr President, and I also take my instruction from Tynwald Court.

But to answer the Hon. Member, I did not say that we had people illegally here, in work, in the Isle of Man. I was addressing a question from the Hon. Member, who said if that was the case, could action not be taken. What I was trying to illustrate was that for harbouring, yes, there is action, but for employing, there is not.

So, therefore, as far as the Hon. Member is concerned, I do not know whether there are people in the Isle of Man. All I can say is that 15 people were sent off the Island, for whatever reason, and I have no personal indication as to what and why those persons were deported from the Isle of Man, sir.

The President: A fi nal supplementary, Mr Delaney.

Mr Delaney: Thank you, Mr President.Would the Chief Minister just confi rm to me that all jobs

that become vacant in the Isle of Man should be advertised at a Job Centre and not to do so is an offence? That example is a classic one.

The second one is: taking my congratulations to the work done by your offi cers on this, would he not agree with me that, to assist those offi cers carrying out their functions and give them some back up, it is time to take a look at prosecuting at this stage, people under any Act we can that is lawful, so that they know they mean business?


The Chief Minister: I think, again, without disclosing any information with regard to the point, there is something at the moment, I am quite sure, going to the court, which might very well do that, sir.

The President: I omitted to invite the Hon. Member for Douglas South – a supplementary, sir.

Mr Duggan: Thank you, Mr President.Could I ask the Chief Minister, sir: at one time, on the

Island, you had to fi ll a little form in, saying what the purpose of your visit was, coming and going. They do this on the continent quite a lot, too. Would that not be the answer to this growing problem, sir?


The Chief Minister: Yes, again, I refer back to the hon. original questioner, who brought that to me some 12 months ago, that, of course, that would have helped in many, many other ways as well, as to try to verify for our statistics why people come to the Isle of Man.

It is something that would have to be introduced with the airports and the sea, but it, certainly, would be something that would be most helpful. But, of course, in the way in which the barriers have been brought down, years ago, and this

was the panacea of free travel throughout Europe, actually, now they have seen, of course, that that has its down sides, as well as its up sides.

Public Register of Members ̓InterestsIntroduction of Registrar

3. The Hon. Member for Castletown (Mr Speaker) to ask the Chief Minister:

As it is a requirement that all Members of Tynwald declare all their interests as set out in the Register of Members ̓ Interests Rules 2003 and 2005, will you consider introducing at an early date enabling legislation to provide for the appointment of a Registrar and for the making of statutory regulations so as to require all appointed lay persons and elected persons (other than Members of Tynwald) who are appointed to Government Departments, Executive Government Committees, Statutory Boards, Statutory Committees, the Board of Education, local authorities and any other appropriate public bodies to register their interests in line with the criteria which apply to Members of Tynwald and provide for the Register to be publicly available for inspection free of charge during normal offi ce hours?

The President: Mr Speaker, Question 3.

The Speaker: 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 Chief Minister.


I am more than happy to look at the suggestion of Mr Speaker, in his Question. It is not a simple area. As Mr Speaker suggests, there are rules for Members of Tynwald. There are, also, rules existing for local authority members.

In fact, as I understand it, Mr President, if a local authority member fails to properly declare a pecuniary interest or takes part in a discussion, or a vote, on a matter in which he or she has an interest, they can then be fi ned up to £2,500, unless the member can prove that he or she was unaware of the interest. Similarly, there is guidance to members of Statutory Boards with regard to declaration of interest.

There is, I would suggest, Mr President, a balance to be struck in this matter, between ensuring that the public bodies are seen to be acting openly, honestly and with probity, and the right of an individual to privacy, with regard to matters which are not relevant to the public duties he or she has offered to undertake.

Now, where a private individual has volunteered to serve as a lay member of a public body, they do not necessarily expect to have the whole of their fi nancial interests laid bare to the world. We need the valuable expertise of these people, and I would not wish to impose such onerous sanctions as would discourage them from public duty.

Therefore, Mr President, I propose to take this matter back with me, and look at it in some depth, as part of the current ongoing review of the governance within our Government, sir.


Public Register of Members’ Interests – Introduction of RegistrarChange of title of Lieutenant-Governor – Department of Constitutional Affairs’ response

The President: Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. I thank the Chief Minister for his initial positive view

on principle. Can I ask the Chief Minister, is he aware that, certainly in relation to local authorities, whilst it is a responsibility for a member to declare that they have an interest in a matter, there is no way the public, who elect them, similar to the Members here who are elected… there is no way, in a local authority, that a member of the public can actually fi nd out what the interests are of a member of a local authority? Therefore, the principle that applies to Tynwald Court should at least apply to local authority members – does the Chief Minister not agree?


The Chief Minister: Yes. I think that is the area, having served 25 years on a local authority, it is a fact that you put yourself up for election and nobody knows, actually, other than who you are and what you are and where you live. It is not until after, perhaps, then you declare an interest in a meeting that it becomes obvious that you have connections which, perhaps, they would not have supported, if they had known.

So, this is the area, I think, which I would like to take back, Mr President, and look into that, without making it so onerous that we would stop people coming forward to do what is a public duty for very little by way of return, sir.

The President: Hon. Member for Peel.

Mrs Hannan: Eagh ty rane , cou ld I a sk a supplementary?

Would the Chief Minister not agree that, if someone puts themselves forward as a member of a Statutory Board or to bring some sort of expertise in the area of Government, and answers an advertisement to that effect, should they not then be prepared to lay bare all their interests?

Does the Chief Minister not agree that, by becoming a member of a Board – say a water authority or a post offi ce or something like that – that would infl uence the future direction of that Statutory Board, to the detriment of the public? Should that person who deems to put their name forward, not be prepared to open up all their fi nancial aspects and all their interests, when they have that sort of power?


The Chief Minister: Yes, again, thanking the Hon. Member for her question, that is the difference between local authority… who are standing by election, and those who put their names forward, after advertisement, to be a member of a Statutory Board, because, of course, that comes before Tynwald. Certainly, all the ones that I recall of recent times, they always have a full CV of the actual person.

I think it goes back to a call from one of the previous Hon. Members for Rushen, who made that very point, that these people were coming before Tynwald, and yet he did not know them from Adam. So, therefore, that situation was rectifi ed by actually furnishing everybody in the Court with a full CV, but it is the CV as they present (Mrs Hannan: Yes.) to the body, i.e. the Council of Ministers.

So, therefore, this is an area, perhaps, that we could list a little further that they should note on that CV, even if they,

perhaps, were not going to in the fi rst place, their interests in other business in the Isle of Man, sir.

Change of title of Lieutenant-GovernorDepartment of Constitutional Affairs ̓response

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

(1) On what date and by whom was the Department of Constitutional Affairs informed of the resolution of Tynwald that requested the title of Lieutenant-Governor be changed to Crown Commissioner; and(2) has a reply been received from the Department of Constitutional Affairs?

The President: Question 4. Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I beg to ask the Question standing in my name, sir.



Following the resolution of Tynwald on 19th October, which recommended that the title of Lieutenant-Governor be changed to Crown Commissioner, this matter was discussed in a telephone conversation between the Director of External Relations and the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the very next day.

Written notifi cation of the resolution was delayed, until the publication of Hansard on 17th November 2005, which was included with a formal letter of notifi cation from the Director of External Relations, dated 18th November 2005. The decision to await Hansard, which delayed formal notification to the DCA, was taken, because previous communications between the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Chief Secretaryʼs Offi ce had indicated that further information would be required before a submission could be made to Her Majesty the Queen.

As no further information had been made available, it was felt that the Hansard of the date would assist the Department of Constitutional Affairs in understanding the resolution of Tynwald.

The answer to the question (2): the Department of Constitutional Affairs replied to us on 5th January this month, sir.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: What were the terms of the reply from the Department of Constitutional Affairs? Perhaps Members could be informed.

The President: The Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: The letter from the Constitutional Affairs required us to get further information, which they would require before they actually considered the request from the Isle of Man, sir.


Change of title of Lieutenant-Governor – Department of Constitutional Affairs’ response Welcome to the Rev. Norman Wallwork

People paid less than minimum wage – Rectifying situation


Mr Delaney: When is the Court to know what those particular specifi c items are, so that we can also start looking at this particular matter?


The Chief Minister: I would think, Mr President, within the next two days. Either today or tomorrow, I think, that will be divulged to Hon. Members, as to the progress that we have made, what we have done in actioning that letter from the Constitutional Offi ce, from our Offi ce of International and Constitutional Affairs.

It gets rather mixed up, because we have got two. We have got one parliamentary and one in the Government, but we have corresponded with the parliament Committee and the parliament Committee now are addressing that situation.

The President: Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: On what criteria does the Chief Minister know that the response will be available in the next two days, or has he got prior knowledge of it?

The President: The Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: No, I am just trying to be helpful to Hon. Members in saying that we are not just sitting on the letter from the Constitutional Offi ce. Action has been taken from the Chief Secretaryʼs Offi ce to actually inform the parliamentary Committee. The parliamentary Committee, which is the Committee of this particular Court, I hope will address the questions that they have asked, sir.

Welcome to the Rev. Norman Wallwork

The President: Now, Hon. Members, before we turn to Question 5 and Questions to the Minister for the Treasury, can I, on your behalf, welcome to our Distinguished Visitors ̓Gallery the Rev. Norman Wallwork, (Members: Hear, hear.) who was the speaker at the Presidentʼs Breakfast this morning.

We welcome you, sir, to watch over our proceedings this morning.

A Member: Hear, hear.

TREASURY

People paid less than minimum wageRectifying situation

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

Given your answer to me in December 2005 Tynwald which suggested 330 people were being paid below the national minimum wage, what have you done to rectify the situation and have you informed the relevant authorities?

The President: Question 5. I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson.

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: I call on the Minister for Treasury, Mr Bell.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, in December I reported that if you apply the results from the sample in the 2005 Earnings Survey to the total work force, there could be some 330 individuals earning less than the minimum wage. This was not to say that they were necessarily being paid an illegally low rate.

As Members will be aware, there are various exceptions to the application of a minimum wage and there are circumstances in which purely fi nancial remuneration is recognised as being only part of the overall reward for employment. The Earnings Survey inquiry is not aimed at or designed for determining compliance with the minimum wage legislation. As such, there is no requirement for the Treasury Minister to rectify the situation, or inform the relevant authorities, by whom I assume the Hon. Member means the Department of Trade and Industry.

The legislation puts the onus on employees to inform of personal instances they experience, where non-compliance is suspected. The mechanism for lodging a complaint and its subsequent examination is carefully spelled out in the legislation.


Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.Would the Treasury Minister not agree with me that there

is a possibility that we might have in excess of 300 breaches of the Minimum Wage Act?

Granted he has talked about exceptions, but in cases where his Division could be suspicious, could he confi rm that he is actually saying to this Court and the public of the Isle of Man that he and his section have absolutely no intention of passing on any information anywhere?

The President: Mr Bell, Minister for Treasury.

The Minister: First of all, Mr President, the survey which is carried out annually is done under confi dential cover and, therefore, we would be in great diffi culty in disclosing the information which was given to us.

I would just remind the Hon. Member, though, that the groups where the employees do not get paid, or may not get paid, the minimum wage include workers under the minimum school age, apprentices, those under 19, those under 25 in the fi rst year of apprenticeships, students on work experience, people living and working within the family business, share fi shermen, voluntary workers and, very often, those receiving benefi ts in kind in the hospitality industry, for example, such as lodging provision.

So, there are quite a number of sectors, Mr President, where the minimum wage does not apply, at the moment. It is not the purpose of this Survey and never has been, Mr President, to identify individual instances where less than the minimum wage is paid to those who should be paid the


People paid less than minimum wage – Rectifying situation

minimum wage. The Survey does not enable us to identify individuals in that nature.

But if, in fact, there are people who believe they are paid less than the minimum wage, as I say, there are very clear processes, through the DTI, which they can pursue, to ensure that the situation is rectifi ed.

The President: Mr Henderson, Hon. Member.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee agree with me that there

may well be systems in place but, certainly, for the younger age group in the employment market but over 18, they would not have a clue of what systems to access – they would not even understand the language he is using this morning, Eaghtyrane?

Further to that, would he not agree that with the exceptions he has highlighted put to one side, if there were cases that were specifi c and worrying to his Department, in relation to people being possibly paid under the minimum wage, is he saying that his Division is prepared to do nothing about that?

The President: Mr Bell.

The Minister: In a general sense, Mr President, if information is given to Treasury which identify groups of people who are being paid less than the legal minimum wage, then we would certainly pass that information on to the Department of Trade and Industry.

The point I am making, Mr President, is this particular Survey is carried out under confi dential cover and, with data protection, we will not be able to transfer this information to any other body.

I would just, perhaps, use this opportunity for the wider public that if anyone believes they are paid less than the minimum wage, there is a process, through the Department of Trade and Industry, through which they can pursue their claim for rectifying the situation. The DTI takes strenuous efforts, I think, throughout the year, Mr President, to advertise the process which is available, and to highlight the various changes which take place in minimum wage, and I am sure that the DTI would be very, very accommodating and help anyone who believed that they may have a case to answer.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President.Two supplementaries, if I may – although the second one

now may have been overtaken by events. First, is the Minister aware of anybody, since the law was

introduced for a minimum wage, any employer being charged with paying less than the minimum amount?

And, secondly, on confi dentiality, information gleaned: is there not now an arrangement between the DHSS and the Treasury, where irregularities are reported between the two agencies?

Therefore, I do draw a gram of comfort from the fact that he says that, if there was anything brought to their attention they would relay that to the DHSS, but can I have that assurance that confi dentiality is not the preserve of what I would call pursuing wrong-doers in the DHSS and, also, for employers, there is a different set of rules.

The President: Hon. Member, Minister for Treasury.

The Minister: Mr President, I am not aware of any prosecutions having taken place under the Minimum Wage Act, but there may well be some which have not been brought to my attention. There is a link, obviously, between Treasury and the DHSS in certain circumstances for exchange of information.

As I said, Mr President, in a general sense, if information is given to Treasury which identifi ed people who are being paid less than the minimum wage, we would certainly be talking to the DTI about it.

But as far as this particular Survey is concerned, it was never designed for that purpose. It is a general snapshot, at a point in time, in June of last year, to see what the overall wage structure is and, therefore, it was done under confi dential cover. We are affected by the Data Protection Act and I think if we were to breach that, it would be very diffi cult in future to get the cooperation of employers to actually make a return at all, on this, and that then would nullify the whole purpose of the annual review that we do, anyway.

The President: Let us try to keep the supplementaries to the Question, Hon. Members. Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, supplementary.Could the Shirveishagh Tashtee inform this Hon. Court: he

said that if the person complained about his wage structure… can a third party make complaints about the break in this legislation? Where would they go to do so?

Should Government be encouraging the likes of the unions to encourage trying to fi nd out whether there are areas where people have been paid under the minimum wage?

And, fi nally, would the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree that, if there are people being paid less than the minimum wage in the tourist industry, then maybe the Tourist Department needs to be looking into this –

Mr Downie: Itʼs nothing to do with them.

Mr Karran: – as far as this issue is concerned? Allowing for the fact that, back in the late 1980s, we established a principle for the tourist industry, where we would not issue a work permit if the wages were under a minimum amount, and that is 20 years ago, I would like to know why we are allowing this to happen in this section of the community.

The President: Hon. Member, Minister to reply.

The Minister: Mr President, there is no diffi culty at all, as far as I am aware, for a third person to pursue a case on behalf of an individual who they believe is being paid less than the minimum wage.

As I said, the DTI is the route for dealing with these matters, and they publicise annually, on a regular basis, how the processes can be activated.

I would be very, very surprised, indeed, if the unions are not active in this front.

Mr Karran and another Member: They should be.

The Minister: They are, in many cases, the obvious source to turn to, if people believe that they are being underpaid in this way, and I am sure they do pursue cases they identify vigorously.


People paid less than minimum wage – Rectifying situationNon-active bank accounts – Introduction of legislation

As far as the tourist industry is concerned, Mr President, the comment I was making was not to identify that anyone is being paid under the minimum wage, in the tourist industry. What I was saying was that, in fact, in some cases, the remuneration for certain workers within the hospitality industry, generally, is not just in cash terms; it is also in receipts in kind, which is often lodgings for those who work for a particular company.

The Isle of Man Earnings Survey only relates to the cash remuneration. It does not take into account the benefi ts in kind which individuals might get alongside it. So, it could well be that, in cash terms, individuals may – and I have no evidence at all, to say this is the case – possibly, get paid less in cash in remuneration, but that is more than made up by the allowance they get for the accommodation that is provided with the job.

That was the point I was making, Mr President, and I have no evidence one way or the other, at this point, certainly through this Survey, as to whether, in fact, anyone is paid less than the minimum wage.

The President: Member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Would the Treasury Minister not agree with me, then,

given his information this morning, it is high time that he developed further links with the DTI for transfer of information, and to make that possible, Data Protection Act granted, especially in cases where his Department becomes worried about fl agrant breaches of the Minimum Wage Act – exceptions granted, of course?

The President: Minister, do you wish to reply?

The Minister: I really do not think I can add anything more to what I have said, Mr President.

The President: Mr Downie, Hon. Member of Council.

Mr Downie: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Would the Treasury Minister agree that there is a well

known minimum wage procedure in the Isle of Man, which is regularly advertised by the Department of Trade and Industry? There have been booklets printed, newspaper articles, advertisements advising people about their employment rights and, indeed, the Transport and General Workers ̓spokesman in Tynwald, Mr Henderson, has given extensive coverage in the media about the minimum wage. Would he agree with that? (Interjection by Mr Henderson)

The President: Minister.

The Minister: Yes, entirely, Mr President.

Non-active bank accountsIntroduction of legislation

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

(1) Is the Treasury aware of the Irish Government s̓ legislation dealing with non-active bank accounts and

will the Treasury investigate the introduction of such legislation into Manx law; and(2) what are the views of the Treasury regarding the legislation and can it be adapted to Manx law?

The President: And on that, Hon. Members, we can turn to Question 6, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.


The President: Again, I call on the Minister for Treasury, Mr Bell.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, I am aware of the Irish Governmentʼs Dormant Accounts Act 2001 that defi nes an account as being dormant where there has been no activity for 15 years. Unclaimed money is transferred to a fund managed by the National Treasury Management Agency.

The transfer does not affect the rights of the original account holder, and they can reclaim the money, at any time.

The Treasury currently has no information on the number of dormant accounts or the balances held on them, to form a view on the introduction of similar legislation in the Isle of Man, at this present time.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, supplementary. Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee, the Minister of Treasury

consider setting up some sort of working party to look into this?

Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree that this is a way of, maybe, creating an income stream by reinvesting this money at a greater rate, in order to make sure that it affects the shortcomings, as far as Government fi nancing is concerned?

Could he tell us that, if he is going to do a working party, maybe we could get a few people on it?


The Minister: Mr President, this is a relatively new issue which has arisen, fi rst of all in Ireland, where they are planning, I understand, to use any money which is actually identified to support projects aimed at easing poverty and social deprivation in Ireland, which is an interesting concept.

But time has moved on a bit from that, Mr President, insofar as Gordon Brown, in the United Kingdom, has announced a similar initiative, recently. I understand it is his intention to investigate the possibility of setting up a similar fund in the UK, which would be used to fund youth and community projects.

Now, the information I have had so far, Mr President, is that the UK will be looking at this, during this coming year, and there is an expectation of an announcement as to what the UK will do on this, by the end of the year.

So, there are two parallel schemes going on, either side of us, Mr President, and it is certainly something that, perhaps, Treasury will look at, once we have a bit more information.


Non-active bank accounts – Introduction of legislationInvestment properties/holiday homes – Introduction of levy

The President: Question 7, Hon. Members –

Mr Karran: Supplementary.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, a supplementary. Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree that this may

be a new avenue, as far as fi nding a way of getting more income, especially when we see the overspend on this monthʼs Agenda Paper for the Health Services?

Would the Shirveishagh consider being proactive, even allowing for the pressures with the MEA, maybe setting up some sort of working party, and looking at maybe a longer date, as far as the 15 years is in the Irish Republic – maybe, 30 years?

Would he consider raising it with the Council of Ministers, in order to look at this, to try and breach a revenue problem that we have got, at the present time?

The President: Minister for the Treasury.

The Minister: Mr President, as I said, we have no idea, at the moment, as to the extent of dormant accounts in the Isle of Man. It is not something we have any information on whatsoever, and never, as far as I am aware, has there ever been any enquiry to the banks.

But I would point out, Mr President, that it might seem an easy route for the Hon. Member to take, to fi ll the gap in revenue shortfalls in some areas, but there is no way, at all, that Government Treasury could possibly rely on any revenues generated by dormant accounts to fi ll ongoing expenditure.

Both in Ireland and in the United Kingdom, that money would be looked on as contributing to one-off expenditure, because they could not, obviously, rely on this money recurring year on year.

So, it is not quite as simple as the Hon. Member says, but, Mr President, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that Treasury will be looking closely at the experience, on either side of the water, and see if there are any lessons we can learn in the Isle of Man.

Investment properties/holiday homesIntroduction of levy

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

Will the Treasury investigate the possibility of introducing a levy on property which is not going to be used on an owner/occupier basis in order to increase resources, by introducing a levy on holiday homes, second homes and investment properties on the Island?

The President: Question 7. Hon. Member, Mr Karran.


The President: The Minister for Treasury.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President,

I have no plans to investigate the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Onchan. It is not part of the current strategy in relation to either direct tax or domestic rating.

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that it would be far better for his Department to be looking at issues such as this, as a way of fi nding the money, instead of we are going to have a £1½ million shortfall for the DHSS on this sittingʼs Agenda?

Just like the previous Question, would he not agree that, with new areas like this, the fact that if you have non-active bank accounts and you have the situation where you reinvest the money, you do not take the money off the people, you reinvest it in some sort of bond to get a bigger return, it is another avenue, just like this Question, in order to try and make sure that it is not the poor, the sick and the weak that get the cuts, it is the fat cats who are making the large sums of money, like those exploiting our Manx people with the rental industry, at the present time?


The Minister: Mr President, there is an overlap of Questions there. I think I have answered the Question 6, Mr President, we have agreed to look at that.

As far as bringing in a surcharge on second homes or holiday homes on the Island, holiday apartments and holiday cottages, I think there is a major change in direction for the Isle of Manʼs taxation structure, if we were to pursue that.

I believe that we need to not be looking for short-term gimmicks to try and raise money for the likes of the Health Service, but we should be looking at making the drive for economic growth more proactive and stronger than it is at the moment, so we are actually generating new money within the economy, to give us the revenues that we need to pay for the services which we all wish to provide for our people.

I can give the Hon. Member the assurance, if he needs that, which I have repeated endlessly, during my period of time as Treasury Minister, that it is my declared position that we will not be, as far as we can possibly avoid it, imposing surcharges on the poor, the weak and the lame, so to speak. We will be doing our best to try and alleviate pressures on that end of the community, and looking for new revenues from other sources.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, a supplementary to the Shirveishagh Tashtee.

Would he not agree that the issue of the likes of investment properties, the likes of people who get the capital growth in the property and also the maximum return, through investing, by renting out properties to people who need the necessity of a roof over their heads, why is he not looking at that in particular, as a way of creating another income stream, in order to plug the gap that is needed, for the likes of the issue that is going to be raised over the Department of Health and Social Security on this Order Paper, the Claare Obbyr?


The Minister: Mr President, it is not Treasury s̓ intention


Investment properties/holiday homes – Introduction of levyManx Cable Company loans – Contingency plans for reclaim/repayment

at all, and it has never been the Isle of Man Governmentʼs intention, to introduce a capital gains tax and I think that should be very, very clear at this stage.

All I can say to the Hon. Member, again, is that Treasury are looking at all avenues to produce new revenues, but in such a way that we do not disrupt the growth in the economy, at the same time. There is a very important balance that we have to strike there, but I can give the assurance to the Hon. Member we are looking in all directions, at the moment. Capital gains is not one of them, and we will not be imposing capital gains on property.

Manx Cable Company loansContingency plans for reclaim/repayment

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

Has the Treasury made contingency plans for –(a) the reclaim of £50 million from Barclays Bank in respect of the loan to the Manx Cable Company etc in the event of that being judged illegal;(b) the repayment of £70 million to Barclays Bank in respect of the loan to the Manx Cable Company etc in the event of that being judged legal; and(c) the estimated legal costs incurred in (a) and (b)?

The President: We turn, then, to Question 8. Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: I ask the Question standing in my name, sir.

The President: The Minister for the Treasury, Mr Bell.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, while I am unsure as to the precise nature of contingency planning to which the Hon. Member for Michael is referring, I can reassure him and this Hon. Court that the Treasury will continue to monitor all developments relating to the Barclays loans and will seek the recovery of any monies due from Barclays, at the appropriate time.

With regard to the potential requirement to repay a further £70 million to Barclays, this sum is not due until July 2008, by which time the legal position may well be much clearer than it is today.

As Members have been advised at previous presentations, the Treasury will consider the most appropriate manner in which to repay the Barclays loan of £70 million nearer to the time.

The choice is likely to lie between an external loan provided by a third party, the use of Government funds or a combination or both. The fi nal choice will be dependent on the prevailing economic and fi nancial circumstances at the time.

The Attorney General has advised the Treasury on issues relating to the repayment of Barclays loans and will continue to do so in the future. Therefore, external legal fees have been largely avoided and we would expect this situation to continue.

However, if further litigation is contemplated as a result

of any ongoing disagreement with Barclays, in respect of the loan issues, this situation may alter.

As such a scenario is based purely on speculation, it is not possible to quantify what such costs might be at this time.

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

Mr Cannan: A two-part supplementary, Mr President. Will the Treasury Minister agree that, in normal

circumstances, people or corporate bodies, before setting out on a policy of very, very expensive litigation, costing in this case the taxpayers of this Island many millions of pounds… the Treasury offi cials, at least, should have thought the matter through to its logical conclusion?

The second part is: is the Treasury aware that, if the Government seek repayment of the £50 million paid, part of the £120 million loan repaid to Barclays Bank, then the litigation and court costs will be for the courts of England as part of the loan agreement, and a court case in England will be very, very expensive and cost the Islandʼs taxpayers many millions of pounds?

Have the Treasury offi cials thought this all through?

The President: Treasury Minister, Mr Bell, to reply.

The Minister: Mr President, I really do not know how many times this Question has got to be answered.

We have had a full-blown debate on this. We have had a private presentation to Members in great depth and great detail as to what the implications of the various actions are. Tynwald itself, as a result of the presentation and the debate we had, entered and agreed to support a course of action, only very recently, which has only just been entered into.

It is very diffi cult, Mr President, for me to add any more to this debate than I have given to date.

The President: A further supplementary, Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: Will the Treasury Minister feel comfortable in spending these many millions of pounds purely on legal fees and court cases, when there are greater requirements for expenditure of public money into health, housing and other matters that are of importance to the people of the Isle of Man?

The President: Hon. Member, that is hardly a supplementary question, but nevertheless, Minister, if you wish to reply, sir.

The Minister: Mr President, fi rst of all, I have already answered this question before. I have made it very clear that the last thing in the world, as Treasury Minister, I want to be doing at the moment is spending money, especially substantial amounts of money, on unnecessary legal actions when the money could be much better spent in Health Services. (Interjection)

The problem is that fi nd ourselves where we are today. We have no option to go on this. Tynwald has supported this resolution. It is not just a Treasury move; Tynwald has – I think, barring one person, being himself – supported the course of action and this is what is going to happen.

At the moment, Mr President, up to £1 million has been voted by Tynwald to cover projected legal costs. We are not,


Manx Cable Company loans – Contingency plans for reclaim/repaymentManx Cable Company loans – Commencement of proceedings and legal costs

Manx Cable Company loans court case – Effect on Select Committee work

at this stage, talking about many millions of pounds at all. It is premature to talk about that, because we have a long way to go before we fi nd what the conclusion might be.

Manx Cable Company loansCommencement of proceedings and legal costs


(1) Has the Treasury been informed by its legal advisers of the proposed date of commencement of proceedings in respect of the legality of the £120 million loan from Barclays Bank to the Manx Cable Company etc; and(2) has the Treasury received the latest estimate of all legal costs, including appeals, in respect of the court case on the legality of the £120 million loan?

The President: Question 9. Hon. Member for Michael.

Mr Cannan: Question 9. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

The President: Minister for the Treasury to reply.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, with regard to the fi rst part of the Question, I can advise that it is the Governmentʼs external auditors, KPMG, who will advise as to any developments in respect of proceedings, not the Treasuryʼs legal advisers.

I am advised by KPMG that counsel is still in the process of fi nalising documentary evidence in support of the proceedings. As soon as there is any change in this position, I will update Members at the earliest opportunity and I have just this morning, Mr President, had an indication that legal action may well begin by mid-March.

With regard to the second part of the Question, I have no further information to impart at this time. In the absence of any defi nitive progress in the potential proceedings, it would be impossible to do so, for the reasons explained by KPMG s̓ legal advisers at the presentation held in December.

I can advise Members that the ongoing pre-trial costs currently being incurred by KPMG are in line with previous estimates, and will not require additional funding over and above that already sanctioned by this Hon. Court in December 2005.

H M ATTORNEY GENERAL

Manx Cable Company loans court caseEffect on Select Committee work

10. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask H M Attorney General:

Will the forthcoming court proceedings to determine the legality of the £120 million loan to Barclays Bank to the Manx Cable Company etc have any restraining effect in terms of sub judice, or otherwise, on the work of the

Select Committee of Tynwald investigating the Manx Electricity Authority?

The President: Question 10. Hon. Member for Michael.

Mr Cannan: I ask the Question standing in my name, sir.

The President: Her Majestyʼs Attorney General to reply.

The Attorney General: Yes thank you, Mr President. Mr President at a sitting of this Hon. Court on 12th July

last, a Committee of fi ve Hon. Members was appointed to investigate the true and correct position with regard to the role of the Manx Electricity Authority, the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and other parties deemed appropriate, to ascertain what went wrong and to report to Tynwald with fi ndings and recommendations no later than 31st January 2006.

I understand that the anticipated court proceedings of the auditors of the Manx Electricity Authority under the Audit Act are likely to be fi led towards the end of next month or in March.

The proceedings will be heard before a Deemster. They are civil, not criminal proceedings, and will not involve a jury. Therefore, I do not consider that the sub judice rule, which has such an important infl uence in relation to criminal proceedings in particular, should apply to impede the work of the Committee.

In those circumstances, Mr President, I should have thought that the Select Committee could certainly make progress with its work, notwithstanding the pending court proceedings, and particularly so in relation to the fact-fi nding part of its brief.

It may be that the Committee will feel that the second part of its brief, namely to ascertain what went wrong, could usefully be adjourned, to await the outcome of the court proceedings, since it may be that the court will be invited to rule whether any person has been responsible for incurring or authorising any expenditure which may be declared unlawful.

To that extent, the work of the Committee will overlap that of the court, but that Mr President must be a matter for the Committee.

The President: Hon. Member for Michael.

Mr Cannan: Could the Attorney General advise the Court, then, would his comments that he has just made apply equally to Item 29 on the Order Paper, which is a motion calling for a Commission of Inquiry to be appointed by His Excellency, the Lieutenant-Governor, etc?

The President: We will deal with Item 29 when we get there, Hon. Members.

Mr Cannan: As a point of order, I am asking the Attorney General would the same rules apply, sir.

The President: They may or may not. Mr Attorney.

The Attorney General: Not necessarily, Mr President.


Manx Cable Company loans court case – Effect on Select Committee workCar licence fee supplement – Revenue raised

It is a hypothetical question, I decline to answer.

The President: Question 11 –

Mr Karran: Supplementary –


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane would the Attorney General not agree that the situation would be there would be no stopping of a thorough investigation into the systems of Government and how it failed, as far as the Manx Electricity Authority affair is concerned, and that the only thing that would be compromised, as far as sub judice is concerned, is the actual investigation of the loan situation?

The other issues about the fact that we changed the law for the Chief Executive, like the fact that the patronage system allowed for people to be put on the MEA with no experience, that would not be stopped –

Mr Bell: Tynwald voted for it.

Mr Cannan: On the recommendations of the Council of Ministers.

Mr Karran: – as far as sub judice is concerned.

The President: Mr Attorney has responded in matters of fact. Mr Attorney.

The Attorney General: Mr President, I did try to give a comprehensive reply to the Hon. Member for Michael, insofar as Question 10 is concerned.

Mr President, the brief which is put to the Select Committee is a wide one, to fi nd out what went wrong. That, no doubt, embraces a wide range of matters, which I fi nd it very diffi cult to really elaborate on, Mr President.

TRANSPORT

Car licence fee supplementRevenue raised

11. The Hon. Member of the Council, Mr Singer, to ask the Minister for Transport:

(1) How much revenue will be raised annually by the £5.00 supplement added to car licence fees; and(2) how will this revenue be spent?

The President: Question 11. Member of Council, Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

The President: We turn now to the Minister for Transport, Mr Braidwood.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Braidwood): Thank you, Mr President.

Mr President, in answer to part (1) of the Hon. Memberʼs

Question, it is anticipated that the revenue raised annually by the £5 supplement, and based on 70,000 vehicle licences, will be £350,000: £175,000 has been allocated for the period October 2005 to March 2006; and £175,000 for April 2006 to September 2006.

With regard to part (2) of the Question, my Department was conscious of possible criticism that the supplement would be added to the Departmentʼs revenue budget. I, therefore, determined that the money would be ring-fenced for the Departmentʼs new road safety initiatives, which include: radar operated speed signs; radar operated speed camera; illuminated catʼs eyes; re-launch of safer routes to schools; a red light camera –

Mr Delaney: I thought they were illegal over here.

The Minister: – school zone cameras; upgrading of refl ectivity on traffi c signs.

There are further initiatives currently being examined to improve road safety on the highway network, such as raised curbs at bus stops to assist disabled persons and parents with prams in boarding or alighting from buses.

For the years 2006-07, my Department proposes the following initiatives: anti-skid surface treatment on bends; new road safety campaigns; and roadside vehicle tests.

Road safety is a major concern for my Department, and I hope that Hon. Members will agree that all these projects represent value for money for all road users, in terms of road safety.

The President: Mr Singer, Hon. Member of Council.

Mr Singer: Can I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply.

Can the Minister assure me that, in fact, the money will be spent each year? Will the work be done by his own workforce or will some of the work be done by external workforce, going out into the private sector?

The President: Mr Braidwood, Minister to reply.

The Minister: Mr President, yes, I can say that the money will be ring-fenced for road safety initiatives.

If it is going to be carried out by my own workforce, I do not know, because sometimes we have to use outside contractors, particularly for putting such as anti-skid treatment down on roads.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President.In view of the spending proposals that the Minister has

for this so-called £350,000 additional income, how sure can he be in getting this money in, in the fi rst place, when there are thousands and thousands of unregistered vehicles and nothing is being done about it?

The President: Mr Braidwood to reply.

The Minister: Mr President, I would not have thought that there were thousands and thousands of unlicensed vehicles –

Mr Houghton: Have a look around your constituency.


Car licence fee supplement – Revenue raisedChester Street car park – Night-time security

The Minister: – on the roads.

Mr Houghton: I will take you past a hundred now.

The Minister: Mr President, when people mention to me that there might be an unlicensed vehicle on their street or road, I will contact my Department and, eventually, the Police, because it is an offence.

So, if the traffi c wardens are going around who are part of the DHA, as my own parking controllers, who would go round and report anything to the Police… So, therefore, action would be taken against those individuals who have unlicensed vehicles on the roads. (Interjection by Mr Houghton)


The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. Can the Minister confi rm that it is his intention to seek

to have this additional £5, or possibly another fi gure, added to the vehicle registration licence next year?

Also, is the Minister happy with the proliferation of large bright coloured, fl ashing and all sorts of signs in our countryside?

Can he also explain: whilst he talks about road safety being important, which we all endorse, he did not mention anything about doing anything to improve the standard of driving in the Isle of Man, which is a different issue from general road safety. Is it not his Departmentʼs intention to do anything about that?

As I am sure he would agree, most accidents that occur are due to bad driving standards and not due to speeding or other issues. One issue alone does not cause the problem.

The President: Mr Braidwood.

The Minister: Mr President, I would not say there is a proliferation of –

The Speaker: Come down south.

The Minister: – the signs and the warning signs. I know there is one on the Richmond; we had the parish, where we work with the commissioners, where there are signs and we put signs round to local authorities, warning people of their excessive speed coming into villages or coming into towns. We have the route alert, which is from Douglas to Ballasalla and Castletown to Port St Mary, which is warning people the number of accidents on roads and which are updated every six months.

I think this is a good thing, it shows that we are committed to road safety.

The Speaker: Are you doing it in Douglas?

The Minister: And also, Mr President, (Interjection by Mrs Hannan) I agree with Mr Speaker: we know that the majority of accidents are caused by speed, particularly on derestricted roads. However, we know, at the Department, we are looking, and it is education to improve peopleʼs driving standards.

The President: Hon. Member for Middle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President.

In welcoming the fact that there is a windfall for the Department of Transport, and something I voted for, could I ask the Minister if he will review the decision whereby he, apparently, and his Department, have reneged on a commitment given by the previous Minister for Transport to provide a pedestrian crossing at the junction of Glen Vine and Glen Darragh Road, in the proximity of the school?

I would invite him: could I ask him if he would, in fact, meet with myself and parents in the area to advance that scheme that was promised by the previous Minister?

The President: Now, Hon. Members, we are not going to go around constituency problems. Do you wish to respond, Minister?

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Mr President, the Hon. Member knows that there is a

school crossing patrol offi cer now in place. Also, there were problems with land owners in getting access to put signs up, sir, and putting lights up, which would have made it dangerous to other pedestrians.


Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President.Could I ask the Minister about whether the money is

going to provide an adequate number of road safety offi cers. How many road safety offi cers has he got and how many does he intend to have?

Picking up a point that he gave in the original Answer, on the safe routes to schools, can he tell me why, after the Department spent about £50,000 originally, it must be getting on for seven or eight years ago, on the fi rst safe routes to school, it has just been allowed to deteriorate, there is nobody even remembers that it was launched, that the money spent has, basically, been wasted? Can he assure us that, if he does re-launch it, it is going to be properly done and maintained?

The President: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Mr President, yes, there will be a ring-fencing of road safety offi cers. We are employing an additional road safety offi cer, who I think is coming from Liverpool, who has experience in Liverpool.

I can also say that the re-launching of safety routes to schools is a priority for the Department and, particularly, we are looking at Rushen Primary School, at the present time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTAND THE ENVIRONMENT

Chester Street car parkNight-time security

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

What proposals do you have for securing the Chester Street car park building at night?

The President: Question 12, Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw.


Chester Street car park – Night-time securityDevelopments not adhering to plans – Protecting neighbouring properties

Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

The President: I call on the Minister for Local Government and the Environment, Mr Rimington, to reply.

The Minister for Local Government and the Environment (Mr Rimington): Mr President, in April 2005, the Council of Ministers considered a paper from my Department regarding its planning application for security gates to be erected on the exit and entrance levels of the Chester Street car park.

The Hon. Member may be aware that the Department has received several complaints from users of the car park, and from nearby residents, about unruly behaviour and noise nuisance. It was in response to these, and after consulting the Police, that the decision was taken to submit the application for improved security measures.

The Council of Ministers asked my Department to put the planning application on hold, to allow for further consultation with all interested parties, including the Isle of Man Constabulary. As a result of that request, my Department carried out further consultation with both the Department of Tourism and Leisure and the Isle of Man Constabulary.

The Department considered all the views received, including that expressed by the Department of Tourism and Leisure that, in order to enable more effective supervision, consideration might be given to closing part of the car park and restricting use to two or three levels. The Constabulary reinforced its previously expressed view that the car park should be locked up.

The provision of security gates is only one part of a package of improvements which the Department wishes to introduce on a phased basis over the next few years, as and when funds can be made available. These improvements include: refurbishment of the public toilets; replacement of existing pay and display machines; installation of security gates at the exit and entrances; installation of mesh fi ll between the car park levels, which is a Health and Safety requirement; a renewal of signage; replacement and renewal of lighting; installation of two new lifts; phased repairs and pointing to the face brickwork; deck coating to all levels and ramps, including line marking.

The aim of all these measures is to provide reassurance to the public who use the car park for legitimate purposes, by creating a safer, more pleasant and well lit environment. The Department has a duty to take positive action to prevent the anti-social behaviour which has caused distress to the nearby Douglas residents and to car park users.

The Department has always recognised that the car park plays an important part in supporting the Douglas main shopping area, with the added role of supporting the adjacent Villa Marina and Gaiety Theatre complex, particularly in the evenings. The Department has stated consistently that it is committed to having the car park available for use by the patrons of the Villa Marina and Gaiety Theatre and, indeed, in the case of the former, it is a condition of the planning consent.

That assurance remains unchanged. Consequently, the security proposals take into account the Departmentʼs responsibility for public safety, and for funding and organising the opening and locking of security gates out of normal shopping hours, for example to suit the operation of the entertainment complexes.

The Department has accepted the need, therefore, to continue to press forward with a proposed package of improvements but, in doing so, has acknowledged that the completion of the full programme is likely to take considerably longer than originally envisaged, because of other pressures on the Departmentʼs repair and maintenance budget.

Given the age and condition of the car park, the total cost of the package of improvements will be considerable. The Council of Ministers has noted the Departmentʼs proposed course of action and, in particular, proposals to improve security by locking up the car park overnight.

The President: Mr Earnshaw.

Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I would like to thank the Minister for his response to this.

I welcome some of the information that he has provided for us, but would the Minister not agree with me that closing the car park at night is a rather negative step (A Member: Hear, hear.) – in other words, the vandals have won – and to overcome this why cannot a security fi rm or even, perhaps, the Police be encouraged to regularly patrol the car park and make it a safer place for bona fi de users?


The Minister: Mr President, all these matters are ongoing on how best to provide the appropriate level of security and public reassurance in the car park. We do consult with the Police, the Department of Tourism and Leisure, and it would be with regret that we would have to introduce such costly measures, such as putting security gates up there, but that may, at the end of the day, be necessary to achieve the purpose which we all seek.

It is, obviously – in matters like this and with detail like this – a matter of balance and also, unfortunately, of quite considerable cost.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not agree that it is a matter of balance, when people are distressed to be fi nding themselves having to step over people on the stairs and the likes, at Chester Street? Before paying for security people to police this facility, would he, maybe, inform this Hon. Court – as he promised that there was a working party to look into a facility for those people with alcohol and other social problems that are homeless: how often it has met, in order to prioritise and make sure that we sort that problem out, as far as it being used as accommodation for people who have nowhere else to go. I hope he does not shut it off until there is somewhere else for these poor souls to go.

Developments not adhering to plansProtecting neighbouring properties

13. The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Delaney) to ask the Minister for Local Government and the Environment:

Where permission is given to persons or companies to


Developments not adhering to plans – Protecting neighbouring properties

carry out alterations to new developments that have been passed, but do not adhere to the original submitted plans, what steps are taken to protect owners of neighbouring properties who may not have objected to the original plans?

The President: Question 13, the Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Delaney. Question 13, sir.

Mr Delaney: Mr President, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

The President: Minister for Local Government and the Environment.

The Minister for Local Government and the Environment (Mr Rimington): Mr President, compliance with the terms of planning approval is the responsibility of the person or company carrying out the development. However, my Department does have planning enforcement powers and any complaint that a development is proceeding other than in accordance with the approved plans is investigated by the enforcement offi cer.

The action which follows such an investigation depends on the nature and extent of any departure from the approved plans. There is, of course, a level below which no action at all is appropriate. However, if signifi cant departures from the approved plans are identifi ed, the developer will usually be asked either to revert to the approved plans or to stop work whilst consideration is given to an application which seeks approval for the amended works.

In the latter case the complainant and any other interested parties would have an opportunity to make written representations and, if they wish, to appeal against any decision. The Department always endeavours to resolve enforcement matters by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the use of formal notices or legal action, if that can be avoided.

However, where this general approach fails, the new enforcement powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, which were brought into operation in November 2005 include provision for the service of enforcement notices and stop notices and also a facility for the Department to apply to the High Court for an injunction. While I anticipate having to use these powers only rarely, the Department will not hesitate to employ whichever is the most appropriate mechanism for achieving a satisfactory and expedient outcome.


Mr Delaney: A number of supplementaries, Mr President, on this.

I am satisfi ed that the offi cer who wrote that Answer… and the Minister, I am thankful to him for reading it (Laughter), but the fact is, Mr President, would you not agree with me that where he says with the new enforcement regulations, he intends to use them rarely, or has the idea of using them rarely, we have a situation throughout Douglas at least – I have not visited the country recently – where planning permissions are put in and then we fi nd things such as windows appearing on the gables which were blank and did not affect the neighbours. They did not in any way wish to object, but now they fi nd that their privacy is being invaded.

Your officers, who do not seem to hold the same commitment, maybe, as you have, Minister, they are not seeing any problem at all and they are trying to negotiate their way out of it, when the neighbours have been disenfranchised because they have not objected to the original planning, but now they fi nd themselves with a different planning decision being taken.

Will the Minister take it upon himself to review how many planning permissions have been given, as I have done, and then amendments to those planning permissions have been put in within months of the planning permission being given?


The Minister: Extensive number of points raised by the Hon. Member.

Planning is always an area of concern in the Island and, indeed, in any other jurisdiction and there is always an area for contention. I would refute the statement made ʻthroughout Douglasʼ, indicating that there is a general departure from planning applications. I would say that the majority of people who receive planning application, do put that planning application into effect in the way that it was meant to, but there will be exceptions and there are mechanisms to address that.

Where the Hon. Member refers to cases, then action can be taken and is taken and people are not disenfranchised, because the developer, whoever that be, whether it is a private individual or a company, has to either revert and change the work back to the original or has to put in a planning application. When that planning application is lodged, then the rights of the individuals, who are neighbouring and who feel maybe disenfranchised and their privacy has been invaded, have all the rights as parties in that decision.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President.Whilst I welcome the Ministerʼs statement that

infringements of the planning law and enforcement procedures are that, in the fi rst place, they will endeavour to negotiate an agreement, can the Minister say that if an agreement is not reached after a period of 12 months, does he not believe that it is well past time for the Department to take decisive action and to actually serve notice on anyone who has infringed the planning law?

The President: Mr Rimington, Minister for Local Government.

The Minister: As a general point, I would agree with the Hon. Speaker. I know that the Hon. Speaker has in mind a certain specifi c instance and that instance is slightly more complicated than the general matters which we are discussing today. But he is right, that these matters should be dealt with expediently and I appreciate that in the particular concern of Mr Speakerʼs, expediency has not been a factor of the day, for whatever reason.

The President: Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President.Could I ask the Minister to visit Derbyhaven, where a


Developments not adhering to plans – Protecting neighbouring properties

housing application was put in for a single building and that single building has now turned into 13 apartments with a change of use application. Does he consider that the general public have any confi dence in the planning system when things like that happen, and local authorities, because they did not object to the initial one building, are disenfranchised from pursuing the objection to the 13 apartments? Is that what is going on in the Isle of Man today?


The Minister: Mr President, I am obviously reluctant to discuss any one particular instance, which may or may not be a live issue in the process and may or may not be coming before me for some form of decision, but, obviously, if the Hon. Member has concerns about a particular instance then I would be willing to receive the details of those and make sure that those details are passed on. Hopefully, I will then be able to give the Hon. Member, either myself or through my staff, a more comprehensive answer on the legitimate questions that he raises.

The President: Hon. Member, Douglas West.

Mr Delaney: Thank you, Mr President.Would the Minister not agree with me – and I thank him

for the discussions we had yesterday under the Precincts of Tynwald – but would he not agree with me, in a letter – and I gave him the reference, so there is nothing private or confi dential about it, he can look into it – your reference EJC/PAO4/173, indicates different than the Minister s̓ answers here this morning, as they say in the last paragraph of that letter:

ʻAll matters placed in front of the Planning Committee at the review consideration will have been copied to interested parties in hard copy. As you have failed to make written comment at any stage of the considerations, you are not afforded party status, and as suchʼ,

and this is the relevant part, Minister:

ʻnot entitled to copies of correspondence to be considered.ʼ

Therefore, the persons who did not object to the original planning application are disenfranchised from seeing the document and the comments which have been issued, on which they gain the planning permission. So they have lost, Minister, will you not agree with that?

Would you please give an answer. Well, I did not say that the majority, I said the number of new or altered applications going before your Department are increasing and these are the way people are getting round disenfranchising the neighbours in the area –

The President: Mr Delaney.

Mr Delaney: – and if you do not believe me, go through the constituency and I ask will you go to the constituency of West Douglas that Mr Shimmin and myself represent and see the numbers of changing developments.

The President: Mr Delaney, I think the point is made. Minister to reply.

The Minister: Well, possibly when we fi nd some solution to the excess of 200 planning appeals that I have to consider

each year, I might fi nd some time for these general walkabouts round peopleʼs constituencies.

Mr Delaney: It is no laughing matter, Minister, it is a very serious matter.

The Minister: – But… it is, and so are the number of planning appeals that I have to consider.

But the point is, obviously, that amendments to plans are legitimate. It is when the system is misused then that is a matter of concern, but it is legitimate for people to amend their planning applications when new circumstances, or whatever, arise.

The question is from the Hon. Member in relation to his letter and he is describing the review process – a process that is no longer there – are people not being disenfranchised in respect of a further planning application, if an amendment is put in? On the original application, then, unless a person registers their interest at the fi rst instance, when it is considered, they are not party to the review and that is a longstanding procedure. If, when the applicant puts in amended plans and there is a further application, then all the rights of the individual are there and they are not disenfranchised.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, supplementary.Would the Shirveishagh consider, if there is a rather

onerous workload, as far as his role as the fi nal sanction for planning applications, why does he not consider trying to get someone delegating that function of lessening that pressure – another Member of this Hon. Court – in order to help him personally and to help his Department to resolve the issue of the workload, as far as the 200 odd applications? Will he consider that?


The Minister: The point the Hon. Member raised, it is a live issue and we are looking at how that can be addressed, because there is a possibility that the new legislation may increase the number of planning appeals, so this matter has to be addressed properly. (Interjection)

The President: Final supplementary, Member for Douglas West, Mr Delaney. (Interjection by Mr Karran)

Mr Delaney: I am grateful for your time, Mr President, and I did not want to pursue this, but I have to, on a supplementary. I am asking the Minister: will he review the number of planning applications overall and look at the number of planning applications where amendments have been put in, which, in some cases, the amending has been bigger, as the Hon. Member of Council has pointed out, than the original plans? A very serious situation is occurring and it is no use ignoring it, Mr President.

The President: Minister, do you wish to reply any further, sir?

The Minister: Yes, as a matter of general good housekeeping, I think that is fair, that we do do that process and I am not at all averse to doing that. It is a complex matter, though.


Crescent Leisure Centre – Inspections of registered buildingDHSS savings – Cutting services, supplies or medicines

Crescent Leisure CentreInspections of registered building

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

Would you provide the Court with an update of how often the inspectors in your Department visit the Crescent Leisure Centre, which is a registered building, to check that it does not fall into a state of disrepair which may result in demolition?

The President: We turn to Item 14. I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.


The President: Again, the answer is in the hands of the Minister for Local Government and the Environment, Mr Rimington.

The Minister for Local Government and the Environment (Mr Rimington): Mr President, assuming that the Hon. Member for Onchan is referring to the former Crescent Cinema, I can advise that a full inspection of the building last took place in 2001, when there were, in fact, two joint inspections by the Departmentʼs own conservation offi cer and the structural engineer who was retained by the Department for this purpose.

The principal purpose of these inspections was to check the condition of the ceramic tiled façade. Since that time it is apparent that there has only been limited, if any, maintenance work carried out to the building. However, I understand that there has been a recent change of ownership and there are proposals for the development of the site.

I have no knowledge of these proposals, but they may yet come before me for an appeal decision and I cannot, therefore, comment further in that regard. When a development proposal is received by the Departmentʼs planning section, in most cases an inspection will be arranged and, where a registered building is involved, some assessment will be made of its condition. Consideration will be given at that time of any action that may need to be taken to protect the fabric of the building, with particular regard to those aspects which caused the Department to register it.

Mr President, my Department is unable to undertake routine inspections of all registered buildings, as such work has to be viewed within the overall context of the Department s̓ conservation section, having over 230 registered buildings, 16 conservation areas, a commitment to examine yet more buildings in areas, and very limited resources.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not agree that it does seem rather disturbing that it has not been looked at since 2001? Would the Shirveishagh not also agree that, surely, buildings that are potentially in danger, as far as wanting to be used for other development purposes, should be regularly inspected to make sure that basic maintenance is being done on them?

Would he also not agree that this is a major problem that I have been told, on a number of cases – we have got a

statement in this Hon. Court later on a building where they have done the very same thing because of the fact that they have tried to wreck the building – I think that there should be a list put together where those buildings that are under threat are regularly inspected. Will he consider it?


The Minister: Well, yes, obviously, we will consider trying to maintain the historic buildings of the Isle of Man which are registered and any means that can be done to do it, we will obviously consider, because these are live issues. I note that my – you might say my offi cerʼs – original writing of… the Answer was written in an oblique form. It was written in an oblique form, probably, because this is a live issue, but I would just say that I would be most surprised if a development proposal had gone in for that particular application, that it had not been inspected by the appropriate offi cers, in relation to that development proposal. But I would have no knowledge, nor would wish to seek knowledge of that in particular, as it is a live matter.

The President: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: A supplementary, Eaghtyrane.Would the Shirveishagh consider that, allowing for

the fact that there seems to be a total lack of being able to protect particular buildings that would be redeveloped if they could lose their registered status, and the pressures on your Department, has the Department looked at changing the law, so that, maybe, bodies like ̒ Save Mannʼs Heritage ̓with persons suitably qualifi ed can check up on these buildings on a more regular basis to make sure the basic maintenance is done, in order to protect these buildings that have been afforded registered status for future generations? If that is a way forward, will he consider it?


The Minister: Yes, obviously, we are willing to consider those things and I am sure that my hon. colleague from Council, the Chairman of the Planning Committee, has listened to these suggestions going forward and, with direct responsibility in that area, will be concerned that we do have the resources available and, possibly, as you said, where we can, if we are able to bring in external assistance, do all we can in this regard.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY

DHSS savingsCutting services, supplies or medicines

15. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Henderson) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security:

(1) Where do you intend making savings within your Department; and(2) will this mean a cut in services, medical supplies or medicines?

The President: Question 15. Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson.


DHSS savings – Cutting services, supplies or medicinesDeath in care home – Measures taken by DHSS

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

The President: I call on the Minister for Health and Social Security, Mr Rodan.

The Minister for Health and Social Security (Mr Rodan): Mr President, the Department has been aware for some time – a number of years – that there are insuffi cient resources available to it to meet the ever-increasing expectations of the population of the Isle of Man and, consequently, demand for public services. Senior offi cers of the Department have been working with Treasury within the Governmentʼs business planning process to attempt to realign the resources provided with the demand placed on the Department. This has been recognised in previous years through annual motions for supplementary moneys which have been approved by Tynwald.

During previous debates on the supplementary votes, contributions from Hon. Members have informed the course followed by the Department in the provision of health and social services. Mr President, there is, of course, a motion at Item 10 on our Agenda seeking supplementary funding and Hon. Members will note from the explanatory memorandum sent out, that the Department indicates those areas where further savings might be made.

I am reluctant, Mr President, to pre-empt that debate, which will offer an opportunity for comment on the provision of services. Strictly speaking, Mr President, until the outcome of that debate is known, the Department does not yet know the precise level of additional resources which will be granted and, at this stage, it would be inappropriate for me to defi nitively set out how we will manage the demands placed upon us, in relation to the available resources.

What I can say, Mr President, is that the highest priority will be given to seeking to maintain services to the public and avoid any compromise in standards. Certainly, as far as the Question implies, there is no intention to cut or restrict medical supplies or medicines in any way.

Mr President, this is the very reason for seeking a supplementary vote, in order to continue funding vital public services and actually avoid those, and I quote, ʻswingeing cutbacks in the Health Service ̓which a recent Examiner headline rather oddly said would be the result of obtaining more funding.

Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Mr Henderson, Hon. Member for Douglas North.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.Could the Shirveishagh agree with me that, in recent

information produced to Tynwald Members, he has, indeed, indicated that his Department will undertake or give an undertaking to save somewhere in the region of £1½ million next year as a result of possibly gaining Tynwald approval for his over-expenditure. Given that, where does he think he is going to make the £1½ million savings from?


The Minister: Yes, it is correct, Mr President, that that is the fi gure which the Department has to examine, as to how it can fi nd, within this fi nancial year, the necessary savings.

I have indicated, and it is a matter of record, that we will be looking to non-frontline services in order to do this and only then will we be obliged to look at frontline services. The detail of that I will be happy to elaborate on further in the debate at Item 10, Mr President.

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

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President.If I may refer to a report that was provided by DHSS, I

think by consultants involved over the last two or three years: it highlighted maybe too many staff in the administrative sections of the Department (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) and I wondered whether or not the Department –

Mr Henderson: They are creaking at the seams.

Mr Quayle: – if I could ask – has taken any note of that report and has anything happened in respect of that suggestion?


The Minister: Oh, yes, indeed it has, most certainly has, Mr President.

In response to a recent Tynwald Question, when I was questioned on the refurbishment costs at Markwell House, I made it very clear that those costs were the result of a re-organisation exercise, which intended to share staff and to lose posts with a considerable consequent saving in salaries. So that has been done and is continuing to be done.

Death in care homeMeasures taken by DHSS

16. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Henderson) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security:

Following the recent tragic death of a teenager in one of your contract care homes, what measures has your Department taken, apart from an inquiry, and will you consider suspending the services of that organisation until the fi ndings of the inquiry?

The President: Question 16. Again, Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson.

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

The President: Minister for Health and Social Security, Mr Rodan.

The Minister for Health and Social Security (Mr Rodan): Following the tragic death of a young person in care of the Department, I did make a statement to December Tynwald, in which it was stated that a multi-agency review would be conducted by the Island Child Protection Committee and that an independent person would be commissioned to undertake the review.

This process commenced in the week before Christmas and is now well underway. In addition, it was stated that the


Death in care home – Measures taken by DHSSHeating allowance for UK pensioners in Island – Fight against ‘injustice’

Bordesley Institute had previously been commissioned by the Department to undertake a full review of the service provider concerned, following concerns raised during the course of evidence taken by the Commission of Inquiry into the Care of Young People. This review commenced in November and is also progressing well.

Meantime, the Department s̓ offi cers are working closely with the service provider concerned, as well as other service providers, and there are regular meetings and reviews of all young people in our care. We have reviewed relevant aspects of the procedures of all of our service providers following the death of the young person. Until the inquest is formally established of the cause of death of the young person, it is not possible to make any further public comment.

What I will say, Mr President, is that if in the course of any of the independent review processes I have mentioned, very serious concerns emerge, there is a standing instruction that they be reported immediately to the Department, so that appropriate action can be taken. At this present time and on the information available to the Department and until we receive such report, the standards of care provided by all of our service providers are considered appropriate.


The President: Hon. Member, Douglas North.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.I thank the Shirveishagh for his positive answer to this

most serious of situations. Could he give further assurance to the public with regards to care of our young children, notwithstanding that there is an inquiry ongoing, but of the fact of any interim measures being put in place following the unfortunate death of a young person?

Could he also confi rm or deny if his offi cials have actually met on site at the various care homes of the organisation in question to look at the then policies in place for 24-hour care?


The Minister: There is, at the present time, considerable dialogue taking place, meetings with staff and with our care providers. In fact, I do not think that the care provider referred to could be the subject of any closer scrutiny than what is taking place. (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) There are two external, independent reviews into that particular provider taking place, as well as the usual ongoing registration and inspection processes, the contract management process – because we are under a contractual situation – that is being monitored, as to whether the terms of the contract are being adhered to. That is ongoing and, of course, the review processes around individual children and young people in care is a matter of daily activity by the Department, anyway.

So, yes, Hon. Member, I can give the assurance that everything that can be done is currently being done.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, the Shirveishagh informed this Hon. Court that the independent person who was doing the inquiry – the body – had done the investigations before, as far as the Department is concerned. Would this cloud the issue, as far as independence is concerned, if they have

already once before investigated?Would the Shirveishagh not also agree that the idea that at

the inter-party group – or whatever they call themselves – that has been set up, there is a certain amount of vested interest in that group, as they are responsible for the management of this service for the taxpayers of the Isle of Man? What opportunity will we have to have any confi dence that we are actually lancing the boil, as far as Social Services are concerned, and get some sort of accountability that is not vested in self interest into this service?


The Minister: I completely reject the assertions that there is any self interest or compromise taking place in this process. First of all, the multi-agency review dealing with the second part of the Question is being conducted by the Islandʼs Child Protection Committee, in which I think we can have confi dence. But the confi dence is enhanced by the fact that an independent person has been appointed by that Committee. A former deputy director of social services in Staffordshire has been appointed as the independent person of that Committee to look into the particular case we are talking about.

In respect of the fi rst part of the Hon. Member s̓ Question, which is: can we have confi dence in the impartiality of the Bordseley Institute? We most certainly can. We most certainly can, Mr President. That is a well-respected, independent agency that carries out investigations of this sort as a matter of course, is very, very experienced, and the fact that they were previously engaged to look at the organisation in question does not affect one iota their impartiality. Were it to be otherwise, then they simply would not have been appointed, Mr President.

Heating allowance for UK pensioners in IslandFight against ʻinjusticeʼ

17. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security:

(1) What steps has your Department taken to resolve the blatant injustice of UK pensioners who come to live in the Isle of Man, getting the same UK heating allowance that the UK would provide to them if they went to a part of the European Union; and(2) when are you going to ask the UK MP, Isle of Man Group, to raise this issue to fi ght for these pensioners?

The President: We turn, then, to Question 17. Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

The President: Again, I call Mr Rodan, Minister for Health and Social Security.

The Minister for Health and Society Security (Mr Rodan): Yes, thank you, Mr President.

I thank the Hon. Member for his Question. It is assumed that the Question refers to the winter fuel payment which


Heating allowance for UK pensioners in Island – Fight against ‘injustice’Langness fencing – Costs and time taken to answer questions

the United Kingdom Government introduced in the winter of 1997-98.

The fact that the winter fuel payment is now payable to former UK residents living within an European Economic Area country, provided that they acquired entitlement in the UK prior to moving is not as a result of United Kingdom Government policy, but because of the United Kingdomʼs obligations to the EU and the EEA under European Community regulations. I think that fact is fairly well known.

As Hon. Members are well aware, the Isle of Man, of course, is not part of the EU nor the EEA, nor do EU Social Security Regulations apply in the Island. The requirements for the UK Government to pay winter fuel payments to former UK residents does not, therefore, extend to such persons who now reside in the Isle of Man. Whether former residents of the UK who have moved to the Isle of Man should be entitled to a winter fuel payment from the United Kingdom Government is a matter of policy, of policy, Mr President, for the UK Government, not the Isle of Man Government, to determine.

The UK Government, vis à vis the Lord Chancellorʼs Offi ce and more recently the Department for Constitutional Affairs, has certainly been requested to reconsider its policy, indeed on more than one occasion, the latest, certainly, being in June 2005. However, it has maintained – this is the ECA – that whilst it is obliged under EC Social Security Regulations to continue paying winter fuel payments to people who qualify for a payment in the UK and then move to live outside the UK, provided it is within the EEA, it will not extend winter fuel payments to UK pensioners living in the Isle of Man. I reiterate, Mr President, that the UK is free to make that policy decision.

Aggrieved former UK residents are, of course, at liberty to make representations to the UK Government themselves, but it is very much up to the UK Government.

In summary, Mr President, I can confirm that the Department and the Chief Secretaryʼs Offi ce have made representations to the UK Government on this issue, accepting merit in the case that the Hon. Member is asking about, but we have been told very fi rmly that it is not the policy of the UK Government to elect to extend the winter fuel payments to those of its citizens who come to the Isle of Man and that is their policy decision.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not inform this Hon. Court, especially after the Council of Ministers making such great play about this UK MP Isle of Man Group, or whatever it is called, have they made representation to them on the basis of the fact that they should raise the issue that it seems quite unjust that their former citizens come to the Isle of Man and are not able to get the £400 now that they get, but if they go to Spain or Portugal they can. Surely there should be a moral argument being pushed by that Group to try and get the issue raised, in order to sort it out. At the end of the day, Gibraltar gets it, admittedly through its association with the EU, but the point is I believe that we need to be more proactive, as far as this issue is concerned.


The Minister: It is hard to see what little more we can

do. We have raised it at the highest possible level of the UK Government and it is a matter for their political decision. If the Hon. Member is asking that we use the UK Manx parliamentary group to lobby on this matter on behalf of those citizens, that is certainly something that can be considered, but I suspect I know what the ultimate answer will be, like it or not.

Langness fencingCosts and time taken to answer questions

18. The Hon. Member of the Council, Mr Lowey, to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security:

(1) When will your Department give the costs of fencing at Langness;(2) how does your Department relate the length of time taken, to date, to answer questions passed to it, when time given in Government guidelines indicates ten working days; and(3) is this satisfactory?

The President: Question 18. I call on the Member of Council, Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: Thank you Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

The President: The answer this time is in hands of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Gawne, please.

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

The answer to the first part of the Hon. Memberʼs Question is that my Department has already given the costs of fencing at Langness over a week ago. The information was given to the gentleman from Ballasalla who originally requested it.

With regard to the second part of the Question, Hon. Members will be aware of my commitment to open government and freedom of information. This appeared, on the face of it, to be a straightforward request for information: however, there were other issues to be taken into consideration. Offi cers of my Department set out the diffi culties they perceived in respect of these other issues and there was an exchange of correspondence between the gentleman and my Department.

When the gentleman fi rst wrote to my Department with a query, the question he asked was about the cost of establishing the Area of Special Scientifi c Interest, the ASSI, on the Langness peninsula. The ASSI covers not only Langness, but also Derbyhaven and Sandwick. The costs of establishing it were minimal administrative expenses. However, offi cers of my Departmentʼs Wildlife and Conservation Division spoke to the inquirer on the telephone on the day that his letter was received in my Departmentʼs offi ces. It emerged that his interest was in the Langness part of the ASSI and, in particular, the cost of fencing on the private land round Langness lighthouse and cottages.

In other areas of its work, when my Department releases information, it has a duty not to do so in a way


Langness fencing – Costs and time taken to answer questions

which identifi es any individual. In this case Government assistance had been made available to an individual as part of a voluntary management agreement under Section 30 of the Wildlife Act 1990. The Wildlife and Conservation Division answered the gentlemanʼs letter on the same day his letter had been received, outlining this reservation about releasing an individualʼs detail.

In order to be helpful to the gentleman who raised the query, my Department sent him an outline map of the whole of the ASSI, a copy of Section 30 of the Wildlife Act, which sets out what can be covered in management agreements, a copy of the fi nancial guidelines associated with management agreements so that he could see how much funding per metre of fencing was available, and information on the budget for the current fi nancial year for all Section 30 agreements.

There was an exchange of correspondence, as a result of which my Department advised the enquirer that it would fully consider the points made in his letter and make enquiries accordingly. Consideration was given to the issues of releasing details of Government assistance which had been made available to an individual.

My Department was advised that consideration should be given as to whether the enquirer had a legitimate reason for requesting the information. A further consideration was whether any injustice would be caused to the enquirer by not releasing the information.

Finally, consideration had to be given as to whether any harm or prejudice arising from disclosure would be outweighed by the public interest in making the information available. This was not a straightforward issue. After very careful consideration, my Department determined that it was able to release the information requested and did so.

One of the deciding factors was that it has nothing to do with the present landowner, who now owns this area of private property, and who has received nothing whatsoever from my Department in respect of fencing or any other works.

In answer to Part (3) of the Hon. Memberʼs Question, I am satisfi ed that the right decision was taken in this case, enabling the enquirer to receive the information requested. However, I am also satisfi ed that the decision was not as straightforward as it fi rst seemed. In view of the issues raised, I am satisfi ed that my Department acted quite properly in exploring all the issues carefully in order to be reassured that it was, in fact, appropriate to release the information.

However, noting the genuine concerns of my offi cers, I am considering making it a condition of my Departmentʼs Support Schemes that the Department may publish a list of recipients and the amounts they have received.

Gura mie eu.


Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President.Can I thank the Minister for his reply. If there is one moral

that seems to be uppermost in that reply, Mr President, it is that Robert the Bruce – and I know my friend is an ardent scholar of history –

Mr Gawne: Please. I canʼt hear.

Mr Lowey: My hon. friend is an ardent follower of history, so the lesson to be learnt from Robert the Bruce is: ʻIf at fi rst you donʼt succeed try, try againʼ, because that is what my friend in Ballasalla had to do, keep at it.

Would the Minister not agree that, although he issued the reply a week ago, that was a week after I had put the Question in. My Question is dated 3rd January, you released it on the 10th and today, I believe, is the 17th, so I want the correlation to be quite clear.

Could my hon. friend also agree with me that the information requested was specifi c and really not contentious. Although he has made a great play to make it appear to be diffi cult, it is an attitude of mind. What comes fi rst, the right of the individual or the right of the taxpayers to know how their taxes are being spent?

The President: Is there a question, Eddie?

Mr Lowey: It is a question, Mr President. I will leave it at that.


The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.If Mr Lowey wants to take credit for an answer being

delivered to his former constituent, then I am happy for him to do that. We would have released the information, whether the Question was down or whether the Question was not down, but if Mr Lowey wants to take credit, no problem at all with that.

Mr Lowey: I do not want the credit at all.

The Minister: As far as the request being specifi c, the request initially that we received was not specifi c. It did not refer specifi cally to the fencing, it referred generally to the costs of the ASSI, so it was not specifi c. There were also issues, as I said, in relation to the way in which the Department has previously handled matters of information about people who have obtained grants and the like from the Department.

We are looking at this and, as I said earlier, we may look to making it a requirement for receiving grants that people recognise that the information will be released, or may be released.


The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President.Could I ask the Minister if he would kindly reply to Part

1 of the Question and advise Tynwald Court of the costs of this fencing?


The Minister: I think Part 1 is quite clear: ʻWhen will your Department give the costs of fencing at Langness? ̓I have explained that we have already given the costs.

The President: I think Mr Speaker –

The Minister: The Question does not actually ask specifi cally for the costs. However I do happen to have, somewhere amongst my pile of papers, the letter that we did send to the respondent – and the total paid by the Department was £12,698.12.

The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Minister.


Langness fencing – Costs and time taken to answer questionsPAC Scrutiny Committee – Expected date of Report to Tynwald

Langness footpaths – Government steps to resolve situation

The President: Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: One fi nal supplementary. As the Hon. Minister has brought the ASSI into it, have all conditions been met of the ASSI which was introduced and that this fencing was part of? Have all the conditions of that agreement been met?


The Minister: The ASSI is a designation. The land is designated under an ASSI, which gives it a certain amount of protection. Additional to that, management agreements are established with landowners whose land has been designated as ASSIs. I suspect that what the questioner is referring to is conditions with regard to the management agreement. Certainly, as far as I am aware, the management agreement has been complied with. However, currently, we are negotiating a new management agreement with the new landowner.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Gill.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane.Could the Minister advise if one of the conditions in this

case, consequential to the grant, is that the posts in question would have to be covered by appropriate insurance and if that is not the case would that normally be the practice of his Department? If not, would he review that?


Mr Corkill: I do not understand that.

The Minister: I am not 100 per cent sure what the Hon. Member is getting at, although I think, from private discussions that we have had on this matter in the past, he is referring to the fact that the Department does not require posts – as in fencing posts – to be insured which we give grants towards.

We do not currently have that as a requirement. We have looked at this as a possibility and it would be, I feel, prohibitively expensive. However, if the Hon. Member for Rushen is able to point me in the direction of an insurance company which will insure posts at a reasonable price, then I am sure the Department will be happy to look at it.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCRUTINY AND THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

PAC Scrutiny CommitteeExpected date of Report to Tynwald

19. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scrutiny and the Public Accounts Committee (Mr Speaker):

When does your Committee expect to report to Tynwald?

The President: Question 19. Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.


The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President.The Committee is hopeful to report back to Tynwald Court

by July of this year.

CHIEF MINISTER

Langness footpathsGovernment steps to resolve situation

20. The Hon. Member of the Council, Mr Lowey, to ask the Chief Minister:

(1) What practical steps has your Government taken to resolve the ongoing footpath saga at Langness;(2) is it still the policy of this Government to have a public footpath around the coast of the Island; (3) is the notice displayed at Langness an offi cial notice of the Government, Departments or agencies;(4) does this notice replace any previous agreement for this area, if so, what agreement; and(5) will you and the Government keep the public informed of any formal or informal meetings with the owners and various groups?

The President: Question 20. Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.


The Chief Minister (Mr Gelling): Mr President, I was going to ask whether it would be possible for the next two – Mr Loweyʼs and Mr Karranʼs – Questions to be taken together, because, basically, it is referring to the same thing, Mr President.

If that is not the case, I am quite prepared to answer Question 20 and then, perhaps, leave Mr Karran to decide whether he wants to ask his separately, Sir.

Mr Karran: Yes, I do.

The Chief Minister: Right, Mr President. Before turning to the specifi c Answers to the various parts

of the Hon. Memberʼs Question, I would like to take a little time to explain the factual position with regard to the footpaths at Langness. The paths, Mr President, are permissive paths, which the public use with the permission of the landowner. The paths are not, and I repeat not, public rights of way, nor have they ever been public rights of way.

The situation is further complicated by the existence of a voluntary management agreement under section 30 of the Wildlife Act 1990 with the former owner of the land, which the current owner appears to believe is still extant, until such time as a new agreement has, in fact, been reached.

Turning now, Mr President, to the specifi c sections of the Hon. Memberʼs Question. In respect of part (1), the Minister of Transport and myself had an informal meeting with the owners of the land on 4th January this year. The meeting



was amicable and the new owners appear, in my opinion, to be willing to continue permissive access and continue the voluntary management agreement under section 30 of the Wildlife Act 1990, subject to certain clarifi cation and to proper respect for their privacy.

In respect to the second part of the Question, the coastal footpath was established by the Highways and Transport Board as part of the Manx Heritage Year celebrations in the mid 1980s. Raad Ny Foillan was established using a mixture of public rights of way, roads, areas of public ramblage and, indeed, the shore. Whilst it may be benefi cial to have the path following the coastline for its full length, Government has not actively pursued this option since the route was fi rst established. The coastal footpath is 93 miles long and there are fi ve areas where the path does not follow the coast. In addition, in some areas a coastal walk is only available on the shore when the tide is out.

Turning, then, to the third part, I understand that the notice displayed at Langness is not an offi cial notice of the Government, its Departments or agencies, but was erected by the landowner. There does appear to be some confusion as to whether the management agreement between the previous owner of the land and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry continues until a new one is drafted. I believe discussions between DAFF and the new owners are on-going, but, as I stated previously, I believe the new owners are open to such an agreement being concluded, as we have heard from the Minister of Agriculture this morning that those discussions are continuing.

Part (4), the management agreement entered into by the previous landowner under section 30 of the Wildlife Act 1990 enables the area to be proactively managed for the benefi t of wildlife. However, it must be recognised that this area of land is privately owned and that the landowner is at liberty to impose such conditions, in respect of access, as he sees fi t.

Finally, Mr President, I do not think it would be helpful to give a blow by blow account, so to speak, of meetings between Government and the owners or, indeed, any other groups, although I am quite happy to report generally on progress to this Court from time to time, sir.

The President: Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: I thank the Chief Minister for his reply. Could the Chief Minister tell me just what progress has been made, because it seems to be you have had a meeting, but no progress has been made and what was there a month ago and a month before that… Has there been progress made, or is it just a recitation of what we read in the paper from various Ministers and in letters of correspondence from other Ministers to various groups?

So, I would like a specifi c: are we meeting again to pursue it, or is the situation to be improved? Is there a timescale? Could I ask the Chief Minister to give me some indication if possible please? I am still not sure, after hearing his reply regarding the coastal footpath: is it the Governmentʼs intention to establish and fi nish the job that was started, or is it not the intention of the Government to pursue an all-Island footpath?

Thirdly, would he also not agree that although he and his Ministers have given defi nitive – and I have been privileged to ask the Attorney General for advice and I know the advice my learned friend has given me, but there is other legal advice to the contrary, – so, therefore, when we say things are defi nitive,

are they and should they be tested? To that extent could I ask the Chief Minister to invite his Minister of the DoT to set up a tribunal to establish what is the true position at that particular part of the world, once and for all?

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, rather than accept definitive statements as definitive when they are up for question, would the Chief Minister not agree the way to resolve these problems is to actually take steps that are open to him and his Government to resolve them.


The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President.First of all, can I apologise to the Court. It was the next two

Questions I – sorry about that, Hon. Member for Onchan – 21 and 22 are the ones that are linked.

First of all, Mr President, this particular area out there in the 1976 agreement that was, as I said, previously entered into, in fact before the previous owner – it was the Crookall estate – and it referred very much to the tenant at the time who was out there, who grazed that land, Mr Faragher of Ballahick. It made certain areas that with permission that people could walk out to Langness Point. That was done on very clear understanding that the people walked that way and they took care in walking that way and if they had dogs they were kept on a lead. That meant – that particular decision of 1976 with the Attorney General of the day – that the public right of way went to the car park and the car park was then created, so that, in fact, people could travel up to the car park, leave their vehicle and, indeed, walk along the side and down the coast and out to Langness Point and come back again.

The situation, as far as I can understand with the present owners, they are – certainly the opinion I had – quite agreeable to that continuing, that people can walk out to Langness Point and they can come back in again, as long as they keep the dog on a lead, which was the original stipulation, because of the problems to wildlife and, in fact, stock, which, under this other agreement, which I referred to, section 30 of the Wildlife Act, it stipulates that there have got to be up to 20 sheep and a certain part of it has to be cultivated and grain has to be grown and if you have got sheep and grain you must have a fence, hence the fence is there. So the fence is there to comply with section 30 of the Wildlife Act and does not in any way refer to anything from the 1976 agreement.

Going back to what the Hon. Member said: what is happening? The only thing that has happened, from the original owner and his agreement of conducting himself as the 1976 agreement, is the fact that, for privacy, the current owner has fenced off the piece at the back of the lighthouse, which is the piece from the lighthouse to the actual rocks on that area behind his particular living quarters.

The reason he has done that, Mr President, is because not everybody is always kind enough to walk the path and actually respect the fact that they are walking with the permission of the owner and there were several incidents where people were actually climbing the wall and looking in through his lounge and his kitchen and literally making a nuisance of themselves.

The result is this particular owner has decided that he does not want people actually doing that and he has put a fence running from the back of the Langness walled area out to the coast on both sides, which allows people still to walk down right along the edge all the way out to Langness Point, all the way back in along then and they come through a kissing gate



at the corner of the Langness building, walk along in front of the lighthouse and continue their walk.

So the only thing that has changed is that little piece that has been fenced off, which as I say, does not hinder anyone going out to Langness Point. They can still walk out there unhindered. So the position we are at at the moment is that the owner, in my opinion, seems to be quite amicable to agreeing to what has already been agreed there by previous owners, except for that little piece which they believe they should be able to keep their privacy.

The Hon. Member asks what is the legal position. I obviously have had advice from the Attorney General on that original Attorney General agreement which was made and it has been made quite clear to me and the Council of Ministers that, in fact, nothing illegal up to now has happened. In fact what the new owner has done is not an illegal act. The diffi culty is, I would suggest, Mr President, we wish to continue to allow people to walk out along there to Langness Point and the only way I can see that that will be achieved will be through agreement and I think the one thing I can agree with the Hon. Member is that that is something we want to conclude.

I would suggest, Mr President, that once the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have come upon their agreement, which, of course, again compels the man to keep stock, how can he keep stock under that agreement, if then dogs are allowed to run off leads and we have the problems which probably brought this all to a head. So there are certain things that people have got to accept on both sides and I would say that the position at the moment is that they are still open to following the negotiations with the Department of Agriculture to establish that and to agree to the situation to allow people still to walk with permission out along that coast to Langness Point.

The Hon. Member says what about testing the legal opinion? Well, I have to say at this moment the legal opinion that I have accepted is the interpretation and the legal opinion of our Attorney General and that is the opinion on which I have been speaking to the Hon. Members of the Court today, sir.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree – and I am sure that he has walked around the coast of Langness longer than I have, but I must have walked round there for the last 25 years – that the principle of the fact that one has been able to walk round there, unhindered, means there is a right, as far as the law is concerned, if you have got unhindered access for 21 years? Would he not agree that the problem that people outside this Hon. Court are concerned about is, is the law being applied with the same strength as it would be applied to any other citizen in the Isle of Man, as far as the principle that is in the law is 21 years unhindered access over land is the bottom line? that is the position that should be, as far as this issue is concerned.


The Chief Minister: First of all, Mr President, of course, this is the diffi culty of the Hon. Member for Onchan not to know that Derbyhaven peninsula, but you cannot walk around the Derbyhaven peninsula. You never have been able to walk around the peninsula for the simple reason that you can go out to the hotel on the left hand side and go out to the island:

there is no link between there and the Langness Point. The public right of way is purely a direction out to the car park, then you walk out to Langness Point and come back in again the other way, (Interjection by Mr Karran) but you cannot go round Langness peninsula, you cannot actually walk around that area. The coastal road around the island, which the Hon. Member referred to, comes from Santon down through past the airport through Derbyhaven and through Castletown (Interjection by Mr Karran) and on to the south, but you cannot walk around the peninsula at Derbyhaven, because there happens to be a golf course, and the Hon. Member –

Mr Karran: I have walked through it!

The Chief Minister: – the Hon. Member refers to the situation that I should know it. Well, I know that the golf course is there and there is no right of way over the golf course and, in fact, the part we are talking about is no right of way, either –

Mr Karran: People have walked it for generations, sir. (Interjections)

The Chief Minister: – well, all I can say is that the Hon. Member was trespassing if he did, but there again –

Mr Karran: I done it on a regular basis.

The Chief Minister: – in the Isle of Man we have no law against trespass. In fact, anybody can walk into your garden or anybodyʼs garden and look in through the window and unless they do damage, unless they damage something, there is no recourse, because we do not have trespass law here in the Island.

Mr Houghton: We do have harassment Acts, though. Harassment will deal with that.

The Chief Minister: Sorry?

The President: No, continue, Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Harassment, yes. It is not trespass, though. So what I am trying to demonstrate is, Langness has only had public right of way out to the car park and public right of way out past the hotel to the island on the other side.The rest was by permission of the landowner. The current landowner, as I said, is still amicable, still willing to talk, but, of course, he has just asked for one thing and that is dogs be kept on a lead and that he gets some privacy, that people are not coming right to within six foot of his kitchen windows and peering in.

All I would say, Mr President, is this. We want to keep that permissive permission. At the moment that permissive permission is still there and I would hope that we can continue to have that, because taking the Hon. Memberʼs thing about a right of way; a right of way is not established by the fact that you have walked it. In fact, it will be said by the previous owners that they have, every year, actually put a gate across to prevent somebody walking it, so that they cannot say they have uninterrupted, always walked down that way.

So there are a lot of problems in the area. I would suggest that we want to negotiate and be able to come to an agreement to keep exactly what was there before and that was the


Langness footpaths – Government steps to resolve situationGlashen/Crossag proposed development – Current position

the Environment consulted with Malew Commissioners on 6th December last year and agreed to hold a public exhibition, as previously promised.

On 9th December all interested parties met in advance of the public exhibition to co-ordinate details for the western relief road and the roundabout. At the meeting it became clear that the traffi c consultant had identifi ed safety problems with linking Douglas Road with Crossag Road and, therefore, the consultants who had been appointed by the Department of Transport to carry out a road traffi c study for Ballasalla and the Department of Local Government and the Environment had subsequently appointed the same consultants to confi rm that the housing development would not have an adverse impact on the proposed highways.

The Department of Transport requested time to consider the advice, being mindful of the imminent submission of the Ballasalla traffi c study. Subsequent to the meeting the consultant suggested that an access for a smaller housing development could be made, using a T-junction off Douglas Road until the eastern bypass could be constructed.

The consultants also confi rmed in their report, submitted to the Department of Transport on 2nd December, that a larger roundabout than previously proposed by the Department of Transport would be required for an eastern bypass. The Department of Local Government and the Environment wrote to the Department of Transport on 12th December setting out its concerns at this late change in a fundamental aspect of the design for the development.

Mr President, as I have already stated, the Department of Local Government and the Environment and design consultants have sought advice from the Department of Transport throughout the design process. The Department of Transport s̓ change of view was predicted on new information emerging from the traffi c study into growth in the south of the Island which was being carried out by their traffi c consultants. Mr President, I think it would be correct to say that the Department of Local Government and the Environment, the Department of Transport, consultants, developers and Treasury did act in good faith at all times.

As with the previous highway design, the new highway requirements do not change the fact that the Department of Local Government and the Environment does not own access at either end of the site and has had to negotiate with two landowners and this situation remains unchanged. To some degree it is back to the drawing board, but possibly with benefi ts, in terms of cost savings and better utilisation of the land. Meetings have been held between the two Departments and the following has been agreed.

The new highway ideas can be accommodated in a new design but there will be further design work and some delay. The Department of Local Government and the Environment has stated that the demand for affordable housing is acute and this fact, coupled with the requirements for decent properties for the Clagh Vane refurbishment, means that timescales are indeed critical.

There are several options for the layout and servicing of the site now that a western relief road is not required. These options all have various advantages and disadvantages, which are currently being assessed. The location of a new school could infl uence the outcome of the design and consideration is being given to two sites. They are the current proposed position and a new location in the centre of the site, next to the football pitch.

On completion of the appraisal exercise an options report

permissive right to go out to Langness Point and actually come in the other way back to the car park, sir.

The President: Now, Hon. Members, with the agreement of Mr Lowey and Mr Karran, the Chief Minister has acknowledged that he could take those two Questions together. If Mr Karran and Mr Lowey are agreed, I would be happy so to do. Mr Karran?

Mr Karran: No, thank you, Eaghtyrane.

Glashen/Crossag proposed developmentCurrent position

21. The Hon. Member of the Council, Mr Lowey, to ask the Chief Minister:

(1) What is the current position of the Glashen/Crossag proposed development approved by Tynwald in November 2005;(2) what joint meetings between the various Departments of Government took place, prior to the November 2005 Tynwald resolution on this project;(3) are any other changes to the announced plans in November to be made; and,(4) if so, what are the changes to date and reasons for them?

The President: Right, in that case we will deal with Question 21, Chief Minister.

Mr Lowey: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, sir.

The President: Sorry.

The Chief Minister (Mr Gelling): Thank you, Mr President.

It is just that it is quite a long Answer, sir. Although they are similar Questions, it has not been agreed: I will endeavour, therefore, to go straight into the Question of the Hon. Member, Mr Lowey.

The Department of Local Government and the Environment has been progressing a housing project for the development of land at Crossag and Glashen Farms, Ballasalla, for the past fi ve years. The design was greatly infl uenced by the Department of Transportʼs requirements for a western relief road which would link the Douglas Road with the Crossags-St Markʼs Road near the centre of Ballasalla village. The Douglas Road access required a roundabout and a 7.3 metre-wide relief road through to Abbots Way. The land required for the access at either side of the site was not in Government ownership. These factors were signifi cant in terms of agreeing land values and negotiating development agreements with the two developers and, by association, with the landowners.

Mr President, the Department of Transport had been involved throughout the process and, on several occasions, had confi rmed that the western relief road was required. Indeed, confi rmation was sought directly from the Department of Transport by Treasury, as part of the development appraisal process, and Hon. Members are fully aware that, at the November Tynwald, in this Court we approved the land transactions, subject to planning approval. Subsequent to the Tynwald approval, the Department of Local Government and


Glashen/Crossag proposed development – Current position

out to the eastern side down to the airport and I was told there was nothing on the cards whatsoever for that to happen.

So, as the Hon. Member has said, why, perhaps, were the questions not asked? The questions were asked and I think we have got to turn around and say, as we confronted the Department with the Minister – who, of course, was not the Minister at the time – and as the Chief Executive said, ̒ we got it wrongʼ. They did get it wrong and they have got it wrong, so all we can do now is actually look at the situation and try to resolve from that getting it wrong, to get something out of it that we can still put the houses there, because we have been trying to build houses there for fi ve years.

The Hon. Member, Mr Lowey, has said it has been a diffi cult job selling this, down in Ballasalla, in the village. Of course, you just get it all resolved and, of course, it gives them ammunition, because I know what the Commissioners will be saying: ̒ Oh well, there we go, they got it wrong againʼ. The confi dence is not there, so it is sad, Mr President, that this has happened. It is sad that, in fact, the turnaround was not, perhaps, suggested to us before we came to Tynwald and we could have sold it as a way that we had found of doing this particular job cheaper. That would have been great to have sold it that way.

I think what we have got to do now is accept that it went through Tynwald, it was given Tynwald sanction. Whatever now comes back, will have to come back if it is amended, in such a way that Members are aware of how it has been amended, but we still have the problem, we still need houses. We have had this land in our possession for something like 15 or 17 years and, as I said at the time it was bought very reasonably – people did not think it at the time – but houses on there could have been costed at a very, very low price. Now, in fact, with all the roads and all the roundabouts, or the roundabouts that are not going to be there and everything else, it is now just the same price as anywhere else and it is very, very sad that that has happened.

So out of this, I think we have got to fi nd a way of getting the houses, getting the thing in the right place, getting the school, with, again, negotiation with Education, in the right place. We are literally back to the drawing board, that is where we are, sir.

The President: Hon. Member for Middle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President.The fi rst question I would like to ask the Chief Minister

is, does this not make a mockery of any attempt at joined up Government? (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) The second question is, in terms of the briefi ng that we received, could he check with the Minister for Transport, as I did at that time, asking about the cost of the roundabout – £450,000 – and the Minister for Transport himself expressed reservations by saying: ʻWell, we will not be able to build a roundabout at that cost. ̓

Could I ask him to liaise with the Minister for Transport to ask how on earth we then put forward a scheme which the Minister for Transport actually at that meeting expressed doubts about, because it has made a farce of the whole scheme that was put forward.


The Chief Minister: Yes, I would be fi rst to hold my hands up and say, yes, it does put a severe blow into trying

will be produced which will lead to a joint decision on what is technically and operationally the best value for money. The exercise is being carried out as a matter of priority.

Mr President, this is a further problem in what has been a long and diffi cult design, negotiating and approval process. Although the redesign will probably lead to improved land utilisation, nevertheless the change of view will inevitably lead to a delay, extra design costs and the need to reopen negotiations and consult again with interested parties, such as the Department of Education, Malew Commissioners and local Tynwald Members.

Mr President, I confi rm that the Council of Ministers has met with offi cers of the Department of Transport and expressed its concern over this unfortunate delay. However, we now need to move on as quickly as possible to bring forward new proposals for the development of this site and I can confi rm that the two Departments and Treasury are working together to ensure a satisfactory outcome at the earliest opportunity.

I can also confirm that the Department of Local Government and the Environment will return to Tynwald for approval of any amended land transactions and fundamental changes to the developmentʼs proposals. Mr President, I hope this Answer covers the points raised in the Question.



Mr Lowey: Well, Mr President, I think the Court will be quite astounded. Did not the DoT know of the timescale of their consultantʼs report that was due for the eastern roundabout? And the traffi c management at the new roundabout would have taken place when they were discussing with DoLGE on this project over the last fi ve years. They must have known the report was due and could they not have imparted that knowledge? If I was the Minister of DoLGE – thank God I am not, I would be… I think I was reported as spitting red hot rivets. That is putting it mildly.

I fi nd it very hard, as someone who has been trying to sell this project to the locality and Tynwald Court, having been sold it one month, less than three weeks later to be told because of a report that they knew was coming, back to the drawing board, boys, with the added costs. The Chief Minister has intimated, Mr President, that there will be extra costs! I just want to know who is responsible for this and what actions are going to be taken for those individuals who were responsible?


The Chief Minister: Yes, well I think Mr Lowey has said he was quite astounded. I think it would be fair to say that we were also quite astounded and I think it would be also fair to say that the Minister for the Local Government Department was incensed – I think would be the word – when this came around because, of course, so much had gone into it, so much had been tried to be resolved. There had been meetings on the site, even Treasury went down to meet on the site, to see whether some other way could not be found rather than pay money for ransom strips and so on. So it has gone on for a considerable amount of time.

Personally, it is fair to say, Mr President, I was not just shocked. I was frustrated, because I had actually asked in a previous life, as Member for the area, about a bypass going


Glashen/Crossag proposed development – Current position

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not agree that the issue, as far as ransom strips are concerned is, we did have the opportunity for access, not to be held to ransom by the developers, if we would have honoured that, yet no one has been held to account on that issue. Will we have, at least, the details of what actually happened, as far as that issue is concerned?

Will the Ard-shirveishagh consider that he should open up the opportunity, as far as this Government land is concerned, to resolve this social problem by allowing other developers and other interested parties to make representation, as far as the land that is in the ownership of Government.

Would the Shirveishagh also not agree that many outside this Court are concerned that the developers make the agenda, when you see the situation where the access on the original land that we all bought in good faith to have access onto the road cannot happen, but yet you can put a school onto it, where we would not be held hostage, as far as that issue is concerned?

Finally, Eaghtyrane, how can we have any confi dence when the original proposal, as far as I could see, was allowing for three-and-a-half fi rst-time buyer houses per acre and handing the rest of the land off to these developers who have managed to make the agenda for far too long and it has created the suffering for us all?


The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President.Well, fi rst of all, it would be fair to say that to be held to

ransom – I was calling them ransom strips, but, in fact, it was the decision of the Transport Department that that was the only way to access the site that was really making us have to buy that land which we did not have. As I suggested earlier, I went down onto the site, because of knowing the area, with Treasury, for the simple reason that Treasury could not accept at that time, that here we had land on which we wanted to put fi rst-time buyers and, hopefully, Local Government Board houses and yet they were going to be still as costly, because there were, I think it was three different areas we could have accessed the site which were unacceptable to the Transport, so, basically, we were held because that was the way that Transport said we had to go in.

The density of the houses and the people that they have negotiated with: again, I have to turn to the Hon. Minister for DoLGE and the political Member responsible for housing, because they, in turn, have done the negotiations with this and it has been a very problematic site. It has had so many different sides and so many people to try to put it together, when, originally, it was an extension of land from Clagh Vane estate which should have been a natural extension. It did not end up that way, because Transport said that they would not agree to the access going through Clagh Vane estate.

So, to the Hon. Member I would say it is unfortunate, but I think what we have to do now is sit down and make sure that the negotiation is done in a priority way, in which we can get some houses on a piece of land that we own and we sadly at this time do require more houses.

The President: Now, Hon. Member, Mr Henderson. No you have backed off. Right, in that case, Hon. Members, I think it is an appropriate time at which the Court broke for lunch. Hon. Members, we will resume our deliberations at 2.30 p.m.. Thank you.

to convince the public that we have joined up Government when, in fact, something like this happens which the Hon. Member has now suggested, proves that joined up Government does not work.

However, I think you must accept that when the Minister himself was actually still explaining and still persuading and still trying to convince that this was the way forward, that that was the way forward, that was what we had in front of us, was the Transportʼs decision that that is how and the only way that it could work.

Therefore, in answer to the Hon. Member, yes, the answer to your fi rst question is defi nitely ̒ yes ̓and ̓secondly, I think the Minister himself would be the fi rst to admit that, yes, he was selling that. That was what he had on his motion to sell, it was a roundabout going off to the west and that was what the situation was at that time. But now we hold our hands up and say: I am sorry, but there has been a turnaround.

The President: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon.

Capt. Douglas: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.At the risk, sir, I think, of stirring up a hornetʼs nest and

listening to the comments that have been made against the DoT and, again, reminding Members that the DoT did put their hands up, quite frankly I believe in the Council of Ministers.

I hear what the Hon. Member for Middle is saying, but I think what we must never get involved in again, sir, is ransom strips and that has been a major part in some (A Member: Hear, hear.) of the problem here and we must as soon as possible come up with a solution to that matter –

Mr Henderson: CPOs.

Capt. Douglas: – and make sure it never ever happens again. But I would say I think we will have a better design and I thank the two Departments who are working together on that.

The President: Chief Minister, I think it is diffi cult to fi nd a supplementary. A statement was made, but answer, sir?

The Chief Minister: I think, in answer to the Hon. Member, who is, of course, in the hot seat down at Ballasalla and will have to address the problem that he now has, and he is on the Department as well: very, very diffi cult. They did put their hands up and say we got it wrong. Ransom strips, the whole problem is, Mr President, that Government – and I am saying this against myself – are not quick enough off the mark. (A Member: Hear, hear.)

There are other developers out there that have got all of that area of Ballasalla sussed. They had the ransom strips at the top and I can tell you now, already they have interests in the land on the eastern side, so if the bypass goes down that way, it will open that. The fact is that they are before us, they are ahead of us, they look at the Isle of Man, they see where the possibilities of development are and, in fact, they buy these strips to which then we have to pay one heck of a lot of money. That is a fact of life, but certainly if we can avoid ransom strips, we should, but I still seek how on earth we can ever do that.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan.

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006 609 T123Written Answers

Crossag Farm, Ballasalla – Situation re land transactions

Questions for Written Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

Crossag Farm, BallasallaSituation re land transactions

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

(1) Can you explain what has happened with regard to Item 6 in November 2005 Tynwald regarding land transactions at Crossag Farm, Ballasalla; and(2) will you return to Tynwald for approval of an amendment?

Answer: The Department of Local Government and the Environment has been progressing a housing project for the development of land at Crossag and Glashen farms, Ballasalla, for the last fi ve years.

The design was greatly infl uenced by the Department of Transportʼs requirements for a western relief road, which would link the Douglas Road with the Crossag/St Marks Road near the centre of Ballasalla village.

The Douglas Road access required a roundabout and a 7.3 metre wide relief road through to Abbottʼs Way. The land required for the accesses at either end of the site, were not in Government ownership.

These factors were signifi cant in terms of agreeing land values and negotiating development agreements with the two developers and, by association, with the landowners.

The Department of Transport had been involved throughout the process and, on several occasions, had confi rmed that the western relief road was required. Indeed, confi rmation was sought directly from the Department of Transport by Treasury as part of the development appraisal process. Hon. Members are fully aware that, at the November Tynwald, this Hon. Court approved the land transactions, subject to planning approval.

Subsequent to the Tynwald approval, the Department of Local Government and the Environment consulted with Malew Commissioners on 6th December 2005 and agreed to hold a public exhibition as previously promised.

On 9th December all interested parties met in advance of the public exhibition to co-ordinate details for the western relief road and roundabout. At the meeting it became clear that the traffi c consultant had identifi ed safety problems with linking Douglas Road with Crossag Road. The consultants had been appointed by the Department of Transport to carry out a road traffi c study for Ballasalla, and the Department of Local Government and the Environment had subsequently appointed the same consultants to confi rm that the housing development would not have an adverse impact on the proposed highways.

The Department of Transport requested time to consider the advice, being mindful of the imminent submission of the Ballasalla Traffi c Study. Subsequent to the meeting the consultants suggested that an access for a smaller housing development could be made using a T-junction off Douglas Road until the eastern bypass could be constructed.

The consultants also confi rmed in their report, submitted to the Department of Transport on 22nd December, that a larger roundabout than previously proposed by the

Department of Transport would be required for an eastern bypass.

The Department of Local Government and the Environment wrote to the Department of Transport on 12th December, setting out its concerns at this late change in a fundamental aspect of the design for the development.

As I have already stated, the Department of Local Government and the Environment and design consultants have sought advice from the Department of Transport throughout the design process.

The Department of Transportʼs change of view was predicated on new information emerging from the traffi c study into growth in the south of the Island which was being carried out by their traffi c consultant.

Mr President, I think it would be correct to say that the Department of Local Government and the Environment, the Department of Transport, consultants, developers and Treasury acted in good faith at all times.

As with the previous highway design, the new highway requirements do not change the fact that the Department of Local Government and the Environment does not own the access at either end of the site, and has had to negotiate with two landowners. This situation remains unchanged.

To some degree it is back to the drawing board but possibly with benefi ts in terms of cost savings and better utilisation of land.

Meetings have now been held between the two Departments and the following have been agreed:

• The new highway ideas can be accommodated in a new design, but there will be further design work and some delay. • The Department of Local Government and the Environment has stated that the demand for affordable housing is acute and this fact, coupled with the requirement for decent properties for the Clagh Vane refurbishment, means that timescales are critical. • There are several options for the layout and servicing of the site now that a western relief road is not required. These options all have various advantages and disadvantages which are currently being accessed. • The location of a new school could infl uence the outcome of the design and consideration is being given to two sites. They are the current proposed position and a new location in the centre of the site next to the football pitch. • On completion of the appraisal exercise an options report will be produced which will lead to a joint decision on what is technically and operationally the best value for money. This exercise is being carried out as a matter of priority.

Mr President, this is a further problem in what has been a long and diffi cult design, negotiating and approval process.

Although the redesign will probably lead to improved land utilisation, nevertheless the change of view will inevitably lead to a delay, extra design costs and the need to reopen negotiations and consult again with interested parties such as the Department of Education, Malew Commissioners and local Tynwald Members.

Mr President, I confi rm that the Council of Ministers has met with offi cers of the Department of Transport and expressed its concern over this unfortunate delay.

However, we now need to move on as quickly as possible


to bring forward new proposals for the development of this site and I can confi rm that the two Departments and Treasury are working together to ensure a satisfactory outcome at the earliest opportunity.

I confi rm that the Department of Local Government and the Environment will return to Tynwald for approval of any amended land transactions and fundamental changes to the development proposals.

TREASURY

Internet ʻim ̓domain nameRegulation and control

23. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Corkill) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

(1) Who owns and controls the internet ʻim ̓ domain name;(2) who sits on the committee which authorises trading names using the ʻim ̓domain and how are the members appointed;(3) are you content that approvals are granted quickly, without any commercial bias;(4) what criteria and policies are in place to uphold the reputation of the Isle of Man and by whom are they determined; and(5) should the Companies Registry be considered as the necessary body to regulate ʻim ̓domain names?

Answer: The Question reflects concerns that have been felt within Treasury and which have been the subject of detailed investigation and recommendations from the Directors of E-business and ISD.

The method in which the administration of the .im domain name has been operated until now is that:

(1) Isle of Man Government owns the top level internet domain .im.

(2) Following a Treasury invitation to tender in the mid 1990s, Advanced Systems Consultants Limited, now Domicilium (IOM) Ltd, were awarded the contract to administer the registration of .im domain processes via the www.nic.im website. A small committee was established, consisting of a senior manager from ISD, a representative from Domicilium, and a representative of the ISP community on the Island, with the responsibility of approving .im registration requests.

(3) Criteria for approval have been relatively general (for instance, seeking to avoid unauthorised use of brand names, generic descriptors, etc.). The time to have a name approved and registered has been felt to be too long (c. 30 days, whereas automated processes elsewhere are virtually instantaneous).

(4) There was an attempt in 2002 to try to amalgamate the .im Registry with the Companies Registry because of apparent synergies that were felt to exist between the two. However, this process was abandoned, following discussion with the FSC, due to pressure of work and a need to concentrate on their core activities.

Treasury recognised both external and internal concern that the .im domain was not being used to full advantage of the Island. These concerns provided anecdotal evidence

that the .im registration process did not stand up well in comparison with other jurisdictions.

Treasury authorised the E-business Division and ISD to conduct a formal benchmark review of the .im registration and administration, with a view to identifying best practice, and consequently a business model suitable for the Isle of Manʼs needs, both now and into the future.

That review reported back to Treasury with clear evidence that the current registration and administration process did not match up to our positioning as an e-island.It identifi ed that take-up of the .im domain did not compare against adoption of comparable jurisdictions ̓own domains. The review noted that the principles applied, with a view to protecting the Islandʼs reputation, were overly rigorous and acted as a limiting factor in the development of the Islandʼs internet business. It summarised the fi ndings as showing that the current practice refl ected the principles established around 10 years earlier, when the internet was still immature.

As a result of the review, Treasury authorised an open competitive tender for the provision of a modern automated .im domain name administration service. This would be backed up by more relaxed, but clearly defi ned rules and constraints on the use and allocation of .im domain names, comparable with best practice elsewhere, for example, allowing the .im domain to be used for instant messaging services, a dramatically growing area of Internet use. The proposed easing of allocation and administration would still reserve the right for Government to withdraw .im allocations at any time if they are being used in a way that confl icts with copyright/trade marks or could create reputational damage.

This tender process has now been completed and the recommendation of Domicilium (IOM) Ltd as service provider confi rmed by Treasury. It is anticipated that the new service and process will be operational by mid-2006. The service will be administered on behalf of Isle of Man Government but will be self-fi nancing.

Boundary Review Committee Interim ReportFull cost


What is the full cost (including all fees and expenses) of the Interim Report of the Boundary Review Committee dated 19th December 2005?

Answer: I am informed that the total costs to date are as shown in Table 24A:

Table 24A

£ Press Notices:

Appointment of Committee 161.28 Invitation for comment by Committee 286.20 Fees/Travel costs 3,396.36 Printing costs 99.00

Total Cost to date 3,942.84

Crossag Farm, Ballasalla – Situation re land transactionsInternet ‘im’ domain name – Regulation and control

Boundary Review Committee Interim Report – Full cost

Written Answers

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006 611 T123Written Answers

Marine Drive – Plans to re-openIncinerator – Emissions and hours of operation

TRANSPORT

Marine DrivePlans to re-open

25. The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Duggan) to ask the Minister for Transport:

Has your Department any intention at all to re-open the Marine Drive?

Answer: I have a clear recollection that the Hon. Member for Douglas South raised an almost identical Written Question in May of last year.

Accordingly, on checking the previous written reply, I am able to re-confi rm as follows:

My Department does not at present have any plans to re-open Marine Drive to through traffi c, nor are any funds allocated for that purpose.

Whilst my Department readily accepts the desirability of re-opening Marine Drive to traffi c, my Department has many more pressing calls on its revenue budget, as defi ned by accident records and highway network and capacity issues.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTAND THE ENVIRONMENT

IncineratorEmissions and hours of operation

26. The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mr Duggan) to ask the Minister for Local Government and the Environment:

(1) Does the Island s̓ new incinerator plant fully comply with all conditions relating to emissions;(2) how many hours does it operate each week; and(3) does it operate at night?

Answer: (1) The emission standards for the new Energy from Waste Plant are set down in Waste Disposal Licence WDC/06/2003/VI issued on 14th November, 2003.

This Licence encompasses the stringent standards of the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID) – 2000/76/EC for emissions to air and best practice pollution prevention controls for controlling other potential emissions or discharges to water and land.

The objective of both the licence and the WID in relation to emissions to air is to ensure that critical loads and levels of certain pollutants should not be exceeded to ensure people are protected against health risks from air pollution.

One of the requirements on the operator of the plant, SITA (IOM) Limited, is to provide environmental notifi cations to the Department, as regulator, for any exceedences. This includes measures taken, or intended to be taken, to prevent recurrence of an incident, including shut down of an incineration line for a critical event, and monthly reports on continuous emissions ̓monitoring for particulates, volatile organic compounds, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and ammonia.

Reports are also provided to the Department detailing periodic measurements of hydrogen fl uoride, cadmium and

thallium, mercury, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxin-like PCBs (polychlorinated biphenylʼs), and dioxins and furans (which are sampled on a continuous basis).

SITA also provides ʻreal time ̓monitoring data on their web site, www.sita.co.im/

The licence is regulated by the Department under powers contained in the Public Health Acts.

There are regular quarterly meetings (more frequent meetings have been held 12 months post commissioning) of the Richmond Hill Consultative Committee, established by the Department to provide a mechanism for community input. The Committeeʼs remit is to ensure that the Energy from Waste Plant is operated and maintained so as to comply with all conditions set out in –

• the planning consents• the Waste Disposal Licence• all other statutes relevant to the prevention of pollution from the Plant.

All information relevant to its functions is provided to the Committee, including all notifi cations, reports and other relevant matters.

The technical support to the Committee is provided by offi cers of the Department s̓ Environment, Safety and Health Directorate, including the Environmental Protection Unit as environmental regulator.

Additionally, any reports from external independent consultants are provided to the Committee.

A recent regulatory audit of the Plant, undertaken by external consultants includes an OMA (Operator Monitoring Assessment) of emissions to air. The report is being considered at present.

This assessment is the UK Environment Agencyʼs ʻbest practice ̓guidance tool in establishing and demonstrating a ʻhigh level ̓of monitoring knowledge from a process operator and hence compliance with the air emissions aspects of an operating licence.

The assessment comprises fi ve attributes: management, training and competency of personnel; fi tness of purpose of monitoring methods; maintenance of monitoring equipment; calibration of monitoring equipment; and, quality assurance/quality control of monitoring effort.

Each attribute has up to six elements. A score out of fi ve is awarded to all those that apply and an overall percentage is produced.

Also, three of the elements are identifi ed as ̒ fundamental ̓and a low score (below 3) in any of these highlights a particular need for improvement.

These are:

OMA 2A –Does the monitoring method or surrogate method measure what it should?OMA 2E – Are the sampling positions spatially representative, with good access?OMA 4D – Acceptability of calibration methods.

A high overall score of 82% was determined and none of the three fundamental elements had a score below 3.

In conclusion, it is clear that the answer to the fi rst part of the Hon. Member s̓ Question is that the Island s̓ Energy from Waste Plant is operating in accordance with the conditions of its waste disposal licence, which are necessary for the purpose of preventing pollution, danger to public health and


serious detriment to the amenities of the locality in which the facility is situated.

(2) Both the primary and secondary lines of the Energy from Waste Plant are available for operation on a twenty four hour, seven day per week basis. However, the level of operation takes into account the quantities of waste requiring to be incinerated.

In an answer to a question in another place in November 2005, I stated that, from April 2005 to September 2005, the primary line operated 6 days per week on average. I also stated that the secondary line operated an average of 3.7 days per week from July 2005 (when it completed commissioning) to September 2005.

(3) The Plant does operate at night, but, again, there will be times when it is not in operation owing to planned maintenance and periodic overhaul. I should add that it was always envisaged that there would not be a business demand suffi cient to justify the secondary stream operating throughout the week.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY

European Health Insurance CardsSituation for Isle of Man residents

27. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Corkill) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security:

(1) What is the situation for Isle of Man residents who have applied for and received European Health Insurance Cards (EHIC) which have replaced E111 forms which were not available or of value to Isle of Man residents;(2) are Isle of Man residents in possession of EHIC cards (by online application at www.dh.gov.uk) entitled to State provided healthcare within EEA countries and Switzerland;(3) do residents of the EEA and Switzerland have access to Isle of Man Health Services when visiting the Island;(4) will you promote the benefi ts, if any, of EHIC to Isle of Man residents and encourage them to apply online:(5) are you aware that insurers offering travel health policies to Isle of Man residents sometimes insist that policyholders possess an EHIC; and(6) does your Department provide an up to date guidance information leafl et on health insurance for Isle of Man residents travelling abroad?

Answer: (1) When persons apply for a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) they are asked to confi rm acceptance of the terms and conditions. One of the conditions attached to the issue of an EHIC is that the applicant should be a UK resident. Therefore, residents of the Isle of Man are not entitled to apply for European Health Insurance Cards (EHIC).

This was also true of an E111 form, which has been replaced by the EHIC – they can only be validly held by UK residents.

Therefore, any Manx resident submitting an application

and receiving a card will have received it under false pretences. The Department understands that the UK Department of Health is in the process of making changes to the application process so that applications from persons applying using Isle of Man addresses will be rejected, even if the terms and conditions are falsely accepted. It is also understood that IOM residents who have already applied for and received Cards will be asked to return them.

Students whose home address is in the Isle of Man but who spend the majority of their year living and studying in the UK, are classed as UK residents and can apply for Cards. If, when their studies end, they return to live on the Island, they will be required to return their EHIC.

(2) Because Manx residents cannot comply with the terms and conditions to validly apply for an EHIC, the possession of such a Card does not grant them any benefi ts, including the provision of healthcare.

A valid holder of an EHIC who becomes a resident of another country outside the EEA or Switzerland, which would include the Isle of Man, is required by the terms and conditions of the Card to return it to the issuing authority.

(3) Non-residents or visitors to the Isle of Man do have access to certain health services provided by the Department of Health and Social Security. For example, they would be provided with immediate and necessary (emergency) treatment on the same basis as residents of the Island. (They may be required to pay any charges, such as prescription charges).

(4) It would be inappropriate for the Department to promote the benefits of holding an EHIC when Manx residents are not entitled to apply or hold such a Card.

(5) The Department is aware that companies offering health insurance products often ask people applying for travel health policies whether or not they hold an EHIC. This is to reduce their costs in case of an accident, as the State will pay for treatment of an EHIC holder, whereas the insurer will pay the full costs of a person who does not hold the Card.

The perceived inability of a Manx resident to hold an EHIC and thus obtain travel insurance, has been brought to the attention of the Department. However, we have found that explaining the circumstances to an insurer has almost always resulted in the removal of the requirement to hold an EHIC if the insured is a Manx resident and therefore cannot validly hold an EHIC.

(6) The Department advises Manx residents that they should consider the purchase of travel insurance or be prepared to pay the full cost of any healthcare treatment and repatriation when travelling outside the UK. The Department does not provide advice regarding the type of arrangements which should be made, as this is a matter for the individual.

Advice to residents about keeping healthy whilst on holiday is available from their medical practitioners and community pharmacists. Specialist advice on vaccinations is available from the Public Health Directorate of the Department.

The Department is currently updating the advice to travellers available on the Health Services section of the Government website.

The Court adjourned at 1.08 p.m.and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

Written Answers

Incinerator – Emissions and hours of operationEuropean Health Insurance Cards – Situation for Isle of Man residents

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006 613 T123Orders of the Day

Select Committee on 5 The Parade, Castletown – Statement by the CaairliaghSelect Committee on DLGE Expenditure: Supplementary Vote – Statement by the Chairman

Island-wide maximum speed limit – Statement by the Transport Minister

Orders of the Day

Select Committee on 5 The Parade, CastletownStatement by the Caairliagh

The President: Please be seated, Hon. Members. Now, having completed our Question Paper, we then turn

to Item 4 on our Order Paper. I call on Mrs Hannan, Hon. Member for Peel.

The Caairliagh (Mrs Hannan): Thank you, Eaghtyrane.

This is a Statement from the Select Committee of Tynwald on 5 The Parade, Castletown.

At Tynwald Court, in July 2005, a Select Committee was appointed to investigate all matters relating to the removal of the roof of the registered property known as 5 The Parade, Castletown, and the continuation of the exposure of the structure and, therefore, its vulnerability to adverse weather conditions and to report to Tynwald no later than January 2006.

Eaghtyrane, I regret that our inquiries have been delayed due to the discharge of Mr Earnshaw, who had been appointed Caairliagh to the Committee, and following the standing down of Mr Earnshaw, Mr Gawne was appointed. So, there is subsequent need for rescheduling of meetings and examination of witnesses.

As such, the Committee regrets that it is unable to conclude its inquiries at this time but, of course, the Committee will report as soon as it can.

Thank you, Eaghtyrane.

Select Committee on DoLGE Expenditure: Supplementary Vote

Statement by the Chairman

The President: Hon. Members, having reached Item 4 before we dealt with Item 3, I call on the Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare.

The Chairman (Mr Teare): Well, thank you, Mr President.

At Tynwald Court held in March 2005, a Select Committee was appointed to investigate the reasons for and the full circumstances leading up to the supplementary vote and to report to the January 2006 sitting of Tynwald.

Mr President, my colleagues and I have concluded our inquiries, and only the festive break has prevented our Report being completed in time for this sitting.

I am happy to advise Hon. Members that our Report will be presented to this Hon. Court at its next sitting in February, sir.

Mrs Crowe: Excellent.

Island-wide maximum speed limitStatement by the Transport Minister

The President: We now turn, Hon. Members, to Item 5 on the Order Paper. I call on the Minister, Mr Braidwood.


In October 2004, my predecessor as Minister for Transport, the Hon. John Shimmin MHK, advised in the foreword to the Report of the response to the public consultation on the Road Safety Initiative that he did not propose to introduce a maximum all-Island speed limit, at that time.

The maximum all-Island speed limit was one of a number of measures that the Department consulted upon in their document Tomorrow s̓ Roads Safer for Everyone. The majority of respondents were fi rmly against an all-Island maximum speed limit.

Mr Shimmin advised that it would be insincere for the Department to consult with our people and then ignore the majority view of those who expressed an opinion. He did, however, give a warning that it was socially unacceptable to drive or ride at speeds currently then being experienced, sometimes in excess of 100 miles per hour, and that those persons driving at such speeds would not be tolerated.

Since that date, the speeds and accidents caused by speeds on unrestricted rural roads have been monitored, and it is obvious that Mr Shimminʼs warning has not been heeded by a minority of motorists.

In the previous consultation in 2004, the proposal to introduce a maximum speed limit for the Island predictably attracted the bulk of the comment, and of the 408 letters received, 281 – which was 69 per cent – were fi rmly against this particular proposal.

In addition, there were 3,100 names on the petition on a website, of which 1,325 were Manx residents.

In terms of reasons quoted for their opposition, fi ve main reasons were quoted.

(1) ̒ A maximum speed limit will not achieve the desired aim. Often, the cause of accidents is poor driving, handling, adverse weather, driver error or inappropriate speed.ʼ

Mr President, since 1993, 70 per cent of fatal road traffi c accidents have taken place on roads with no speed limits, of which 60 per cent were recorded as either excessive speed for the conditions, or misjudging speed or distance. The corresponding fi gures for serious injuries are 50 per cent and 50 per cent. Introducing a maximum speed limit must assist in reducing these unacceptable fi gures.

(2) The second point was that the TT would be ruined, with a detrimental effect on the Islandʼs economy.

Mr President, the promotion of increased safety on the roads during the TT period must be a priority for its future. The increasing number of serious road accidents already impose signifi cant costs on the local community.

(3) ̒ The Isle of Man would lose its unique character, with the erosion of personal freedoms. ̓

Mr President, the personal freedom to travel on the Islandʼs roads in safety must be the priority.

(4) ʻIt would be impossible to enforce.ʼMr President, the introduction of modern camera

technology will assist the Police to enforce all speed limits.

(5) Finally, ʻirresponsible drivers will continue to drive fast, irrespective of the speed limitsʼ.

The introduction of maximum speed limits will send a clear signal to all drivers that dangerous driving is unacceptable.

Mr President, during the past 12 months, my Department has introduced measures to improve road safety. These

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006614 T123 Orders of the Day

Island-wide maximum speed limit – Statement by the Transport MinisterProcedural

include safer infrastructure. We have brought forward a range of schemes and minor improvements assessed at improving road safety at known accident cluster sites. These measures also include resurfacing, additional signage and other appropriate remedies identifi ed in the analysis of accident reports.

Safer speeds: we have introduced further traffi c restraint measures outside schools. We have arranged for nearly all local authorities to erect speed indication signs in their areas, to indicate to motorists their actual speeds. There are also signs on Richmond Hill indicating to the driver that he is travelling above the speed limit of 50 miles per hour.

Safer drivers: we have erected route alert signs on the A5, to and from Port Erin, to indicate to motorists the accident problem areas. These signs now also show whether accidents have risen or fallen on that section of road.

We have undertaken more roadside tests. The annual testing of heavy goods vehicles has been extended to those vehicles over 24 tonnes, so we are looking again, Mr President, at safer vehicles.

Better enforcement: the Police are committed to reduce the number of road traffi c collisions and continue to undertake road safety campaigns targeting specifi c safety issues.

Speed enforcement is presently undertaken at problem areas, using handheld laser radar equipment. A red light camera is presently being installed by my Department at the Woodbourne Road/York Road traffi c lights. A mobile speed camera is being purchased, to be utilised, again, at problem areas, to take video of vehicles passing along a section of road and recording vehicle speed information.

The use of a speed camera will allow a greater number of problem areas to be targeted, as there will be no need to set up an area further down the road for a second offi cer to stop offenders. Establishing the stopping area, particularly in towns, in a safe area, has previously presented problems.

We still intend to extend and increase the road safety measures, as previously listed, within the availability of resources, including manpower.

We have, however, evidence that a small number of motorists continue to drive at unacceptably high speeds on roads not restricted by speed limits. As a result, the number of fatal and serious injury road traffi c accidents continues to increase. This is not acceptable, and is contrary to our declared policy of ensuring the provision of a safe environment by continuously improving the safety of the highway and all of its users, within the aim of reducing road traffi c accidents.

We are intending to promote legislation to increase the driving age for young drivers, and to extend the period to two years for the display of R plates. We will, also, continue to introduce lower speed limits, where justifi ed by accident statistics.

Mr President, road traffi c accidents on derestricted roads have continued to increase from 2003 to date. In 2003, there were seven fatal accidents; in 2004, there were eight fatal accidents; and in 2005, there were nine fatal accidents on derestricted roads, out of the total of 11 fatal accidents.

In 2005, as well as causing these nine fatalities, there were six persons seriously injured and fi ve slightly injured, in the same accidents. Five of these nine accidents were caused by excessive speed for the conditions.

The worst accident locations are on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road, 12 of the worst 30 locations across the Island, with over 40 per cent of the total number of

accidents and with between 60 per cent and 90 per cent of these accidents speed related. My Department is currently considering road improvements at these locations.

Mr President, my Department has been monitoring vehicle speeds. The Department of Transport has four permanent traffi c counters on the A18 Mountain Road, recording the speed of all vehicles. On the Mountain Mile speeds of 154 miles an hour for a motorcycle and 117 miles per hour for a car were recorded in 2005, with the 85 percentile speed being 68 miles per hour and that is the speed not exceeded by 85 per cent of the traffi c.

At the Douglas side of Windy Corner, the highest speeds were 129 miles per hour on a motorcycle and 91 miles per hour for a car, with an 85 percentile speed increasing from the low 60s in 2003 to almost 70 miles per hour in 2005.

It is alarming to note that below Creg ny Baa, just after the TT period, but with the temporary 60-mph speed limit still in force, the highest speeds recorded were 139 miles per hour for a motorcycle, and 117 miles per hour for a car.

Mr President, taking all the above into account, my Department now intends to undertake a further public consultation specifi cally directed at the introduction of a speed management policy. Interested parties, including members of the public, will be consulted on whether they support a maximum speed limit, whether that speed limit should be lower, or whether no overall speed limit should apply, except in special circumstances such as accident locations. The maximum speeds proposed are: for rural roads, 60 miles per hour; and for the Snaefell Mountain Road, 70 miles per hour.

To conclude, Mr President, if the measured views of the Manx public and their representatives support the introduction of a maximum speed policy in the proposed consultation, my Department will propose legislation under the Road Traffi c Regulation Act 1985, to introduce maximum speed limits on all of the Islandʼs roads.

My Department would then support the Police in the extension of enforcement measures, including mobile speed cameras, if they are shown to be effective, with the express purpose of reducing the number of speed related road traffi c accidents.

The proposed maximum speed limits, with increased enforcement, will not affect the vast majority of the Islandʼs drivers, who travel at speeds appropriate to the road conditions. Indeed, I must recognise the pleas from sections of the community that have increased in number from 2004 that the speeds of traffi c experienced on the Mountain Road, in particular, deter sensible drivers from using that road.

I will finish by repeating the warning given by Mr Shimmin in 2004, that we will not tolerate persons who drive at dangerous speed on the Island s̓ roads (Mr Cretney: Hear, hear.) and, therefore, my Department is undertaking this further consultation on an all-Island maximum speed policy.


Procedural

The President: Now, Hon. Members, before Members jump up and down on this one, I think we have just heard a lengthy and quite detailed Statement. (The Speaker: Hear, hear.)


ProceduralSatellite and space industry – Expenditure approved

There are a considerable amount of fi gures and other things held within that Statement.

The Minister: I will be quite willing to supply the Statement, sir, for Members.

Mr Delaney: A point of order, Mr President.

The President: I think, Hon. Member, the Statement will be circulated to this Hon. Court –

The Speaker: It should have been.

The President: – and we will, at an appropriate time after tea, give Members the opportunity to question relative to the Statement. The fi rst thing is that Members should have that Statement in their hands.

Hon. Member, Mr Delaney.

Mr Delaney: I am sorry, Mr President, I accept what you are saying now, but it is after the fact. (The Speaker: Hear, hear.) The fact is the Minister, who is a Minister of this Court, should have turned round and known the rules, that we have courtesy, that we have a copy of that Statement on which we can ask questions. The answer is he is dictating to us, rather than making a Statement.

The President: We will have the Statement circulated, Hon. Members, and at an appropriate time after the tea break we will return to it.

Hon. Members, having held that one, as it were, we have reached Item 6. I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move.

The Speaker: It is disgusting, that. (Interjection) That was wrong, that.

Mr Earnshaw: Sorry, Mr President, I misheard that. (Interjection by Mr Delaney) Can we ask questions regarding the all-Island speed limit?

The President: No, sir. What I propose to happen, as there was so much detail within that Statement and Members did not have it available to them to follow, I have asked Mr Braidwood that that Statement will be circulated to Members and, at an appropriate time after tea, we will return to it, if you wish to question.

Mr Earnshaw: Thank you.


The Speaker: Can you just confi rm, sir, that it is a requirement under Standing Orders –

The President: It is a requirement.

The Speaker: – for it to be circulated?

The President: It is a requirement for Ministers to –

Mr Delaney: Mr President, I intended to stand up on a point of order and challenge the Minister when he was

making the Statement, and you were shaking your head at me! I fi nd that appalling, Mr President.

The President: Right, okay.

The Minister: Mr President –

The President: Hon. Members, we have reached Item 6. We have reached the stage, Hon. Members, where the Statement has been made.

We did not know what was going to be in the Statement. It is unquestionably a detailed Statement. I have made my ruling on it. We will continue.

Satellite and space industryExpenditure approved

6. The Minister for the Treasury to move:

That Tynwald approves the Treasury incurring expenditure of £955,000 out of the Government Marketing Initiatives Fund, to be spent over a two year period, commencing 1st January 2006, for the purpose of promoting the Isle of Man as a centre of excellence for the satellite and space industry.

Supplementary InformationCost Estimates

Year 1 Year 2 $ £ $ £ManSat as a Consultant/Management fee 500,000 250,000 500,000 250,000Advertising 50,000 25,000 100,000 50,000Web Site 70,000 35,000 50,000 25,000Conference Attendanceand Sponsorship 40,000 20,000 100,000 50,000Meeting Travel (+ Industry) Support 40,000 20,000 50,000 25,000Associations 20,000 10,000 20,000 10,000ISU Sponsorship 50,000 25,000 50,000 25,000X Prize 50,000 25,000 50,000 25,000New Space Law 50,000 25,000 50,000 25,000Education additional to ISU 10,000 5,000 20,000 10,000Offi ce and Customer Support 20,000 10,000 20,000 10,000Total $900,000 £450,000 $1,010,000 £505,000

The President: Item 6. Minister for Treasury to move.

Mr Henderson: Minister Braidwood gets away with it.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, I am sure I do not need to point out to Members that the sum I am asking for approval for today is a very signifi cant amount, particularly in the present climate and when compared to other spending demands that are being made in many areas.

I can assure Hon. Members that this motion would not be on the Order Paper today, unless both I and my colleagues in the Council of Ministers thought that the money would be well spent and would produce tangible returns.

Mr President, as I have said, we do face a number of challenges, in terms of spending at this time, and it is for this reason that we need to look at ways of generating additional revenue, now perhaps more than ever.

As Members will have heard from the briefi ng I arranged yesterday lunchtime, the benefi ts from the satellite and space industry have already been signifi cant to the exchequer.


strengths and take our offering to the market place, that is the industry itself. The idea is to raise the awareness of the Island, to position ourselves as the worldʼs premier jurisdiction for space activities, to be the automatic fi rst choice of international space companies as a jurisdiction, in fact to be the Switzerland of space.

We are aiming to build a space economy, a jurisdictional safe haven for the worldʼs space industry, a new economic sector that builds on and complements our existing strengths in banking, fi nance, insurance, legal and accounting services. We are essentially building this new industry on the shoulders of our existing fi nance sector, just as we have done for the fi lm industry, the shipping industry and e-business.

Mr President, I know that many people were sceptical in the early days, when I fi rst announced the zero rate for tax purposes for the space industry, but following on from the initial positive response from the industry I, along with the Chief Financial Offi cer, visited space-related businesses in New York and, in particular, Houston and the NASA space centre to discuss the future potential of the industry. It was during that visit that it became very clear to me the full potential of the industry, as I say, currently valued at $123 billion, and of the possibilities for the Island to have a signifi cant share of that business.

As a result of our activities so far, we have achieved very substantial exchequer benefi ts, new jobs and a whole new economic sector, as well as raising the profi le of our Island worldwide.

Our relationship with ManSat, who will be our partners in this new venture, has already been largely responsible for our success to date. Chris Stott, who I think is known to all of you, is a highly experienced and well-connected exponent of the space industry and has already been responsible for a number of new incorporations on the Island.

Chris, working alongside Tim Craine, who now has the responsibility as Director of Space Commerce, will form the basis of our new promotional drive. I believe their energy, drive, professionalism and commitment to the Isle of Man will enable us to compete more effectively in what has become a very competitive and truly global market place.

Mr President, the Isle of Man has an economic success story second to none, over the last 20 years. That success has been based on innovation, vision and the willingness to be bold and seize new economic opportunities as they are identifi ed.

With the advent of globalisation, the Island s̓ economy, as a global player, faces greater competition than ever before. We cannot take continued economic growth for granted and yet, without that growth, we cannot maintain our goals of full employment and buoyant Government revenues for our public services.

We must constantly be on the lookout for new opportunities. I believe space provides us with one such opportunity, one which has already provided us with substantial benefi ts and which will help us further diversify the economy.

Mr President, as I have said, I appreciate that the proposed spend from the Government Marketing Initiatives Fund is a signifi cant amount. However, I can assure Hon. Members that I would not be moving this resolution today, if I was not convinced that this proposal will enable us to compete more effectively in this exciting new industry.

Mr President, I beg to move.

Orders of the Day

Satellite and space industry – Expenditure approved

Already, the exchequer benefi ts from the satellite and space industry are there for us to use, to fund Government spending priorities such as health and education.

However, we cannot and must not be complacent. If we do nothing, we will lose the business we already have to a growing number of competitors, including Bermuda, Cayman, Gibraltar, Luxembourg and Singapore.

These jurisdictions are committing increased fi nancial and personal resources to developing their satellite industries, and we are also starting to see competition in the area of developing space law, which is an area the Island had sought to pioneer.

This is why I am seeking Tynwald approval for moneys to be made available from the Government Marketing Initiatives Fund, to be able to fi nance a comprehensive two-year marketing campaign, aimed at not only maintaining the business which we already have gained, but also to attract further signifi cant new business to our shores. The moneys will be spent on a fully integrated and co-ordinated marketing campaign, which will include specifi c expenditure in areas such as website development, brochures, advertising, sponsorship, speaking events, conferences, exhibitions and targeted visits.

I believe there is a signifi cant further potential, provided that we are prepared to commit resources to compete more effectively on the world stage.

There are other areas of economic development that are important to our economy, such as fi nancial services, e-business, shipping, etc, and these important areas will continue to be funded, as they always have been.

However, at this time, the evidence suggests that money spent from the Marketing Initiatives Fund on further developing our space and satellite profi le could bring the best return on expenditure and within the shortest timeframe.

Globally, the space industry currently represents over $123 billion annually in gross turnover. There are arguably less than 60 major companies working in the space fi eld today. We now have four of the worldʼs top 10 largest space and satellite companies working from the Island. Last month, SES Global, the worldʼs largest satellite company, opened their new Isle of Man offi ce and announced they intended to transact €1 billion through their new Isle of Man leasing company, proof indeed of how benefi cial this industry can be to our Island.

I can also reveal to you today that a further very signifi cant announcement is due within the next 10 days. This announcement will, once again, be a very signifi cant profi le raiser for the Isle of Man, which we hope will encourage others to locate their businesses here.

These types of development have not been easy. The zero corporation tax for space has helped, but we do need to do more, especially so, given that we now fi nd ourselves in a space race of our own, an increasingly volatile and aggressive race with other jurisdictions to compete for this lucrative economic sector.

We saw some of this 12 months ago, when Tynwald voted funds to stop Bermuda from attempting to take one of the Islandʼs orbital satellite fi ling slots. I am happy to tell you that we were successful in doing this and, in fact, the Islandʼs speed and sophistication – the exact words used – in defending our space industry and our decisive victory have had the effect of drawing more companies to the Island.

The proposed marketing plan will play to the Islandʼs


Satellite and space industry – Expenditure approved

Mr Waft: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve my remarks.

The President: Seconded by Mr Waft. Hon. Member, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President.I can only rise and support wholeheartedly this economic

initiative from the Treasury and wish them well with it. This is extremely important new business, dealing with billions of pounds on the world market, and if we can be leaders in this – and I am sure that we can – we can really, as far as the Treasury coffers are concerned, notwithstanding the additional employment in the Isle of Man… It really is, once this is set up, money for old rope that comes in. (Laughter) It is a wonderful idea. It is as simple as that.

Mr President, needless to say, we all have to speculate to accumulate. This vote is just under £1 million, in order to try and get very important new business. I commend the Treasury for bringing it forward.


Mr Delaney: Thank you, Mr President. The Minister already knows I am supporting this, and I

am grateful to him for supplying Members with my request to get the fi gures of where this £1 million is going to.

I just want to get one or two positions clear, so that we all know what the game plan is. First of all, in year 1, £500,000 is going in fees to the consultants, ManSat, and in year 2, £250,000.

Mr Singer and another Member: No, no, dollars and pounds.

Mr Delaney: Dollars and pounds. Yes, I see that. I beg your pardon. I will just change that from dollars to pounds and if somebody will do a calculation, we will put it in euros too, shall we? Right.

Sorry, that is in dollars and then pounds, and that was part of the question, actually. Why are we working in two different levels here, when we are… Why do we bother putting down two separate sets of currencies? That will be subject to exchange rates, anyhow.

But I am asking this: is any of this money being paid out in fees to these individuals, members of ManSat? That is one question. I would like to know – I am sure the public would.

Also, when we get down to the other groups of money, the website… Alright, that will be a fi xed fee, no doubt, from the supplier. The conference attendance and sponsorship, I notice, and advertising, only make up something less than 25 per cent of the amount of money. Can you tell us – I am sure all the intellectuals will know the difference – what is the X Prize?

Nobody is jumping up, immediately, to tell me what it is. You know, I take it? (Interjections) Not the X factor, but the X Prize. I am sure we would all like to know what that is.

And when we talk about education in relation to ISU, are we educating our own or educating others to what we are giving them?

Offi ces and customer support, which goes to $20,000 in the fi rst year and then runs, as I understand it, to $20,000 in the second year: what sort of support are we talking about?

Is it percentages of their joining on fees? Is it visitor trips to the Isle of Man or something like that? Where is this money going? I think we would all like to know that.

As I said, I will support it. I congratulate you, if you manage to make this £50 million on the income. I am not saying where, by the way, Minister, before you shake your head at me. I am congratulating you on that.

But what I would like to think is that, if this does not go on the future, if it does not happen again, because, for different reasons we all know about, we will look at the other opportunity of trying to get them to allocate their offi ces and the business base here on the Island, so we get the return for the Isle of Man economy from that source.


The President: Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.I am quite happy to support the initiative, given the

returns that we have had so far, and it is an obvious excellent investment for the Island and a future investment.

Just something I would like to fl ag up, though, as we go down this road, and I believe that we should do – if there are returns to be made then they come back to our community and that is what we should be doing – obviously, the spectre of some sort of regulations will come along over the horizon, at some point.

I think it is fair to fl ag up to the Treasury Minister that once our fi nancial sector took off, we then had the institution of the Financial Supervision Commission, and we had all the associated Acts fl owing from that, in recent years. Although we needed some regulation to prove that we were a blue-chip jurisdiction, I still do not believe that we need the level of regulation that we now have to suffer. It is certainly strangling some sections of our fi nancial industry and causing them considerable problems. I, certainly, do not want to see that happening here.

However, I accept we will need some rules and regulations, but we need to be careful in how we organise that, and how we grow this particular niche market for ourselves.

The fi nance sector is so bad now, when I rang my bank up the other day to change my address with them, it was not acceptable over the phone any more. Even though the person I was speaking to has known me for years, it had to be a signed letter, etc, and we all know what it is to change our bank account details.

We want something that matches the market need for this particular market, and I would also say to the Treasury Minister – and I am sure his team have got it scoped out – to talk to this new industry, because we need to fi nd out what it is they want, so that we know what to put in place to keep ahead of the fi eld he is talking about, at the minute.

We are talking about some serious competition here. We can be serious competition ourselves, but it is talking to the market, on a continuous basis, and picking up the feel which is what we need to be doing here.

I am also aware, while we are going down this road, we will need to build up a robust and assertive relationship with our neighbours – and I am not talking about our Celtic neighbours, either. I think we need to be careful how we handle our business there, and if there are questions asked and so forth, we need to be robust and assertive enough to defend our position in this, because I truly believe this is a


Satellite and space industry – Expenditure approvedRamsey Grammar School Post 16/Medway Block – Expenditure approved

establishing an offi ce here. There will not be a big measure of employment here, but

they will be highly-paid jobs, and they will be generating business which will come through the Island s̓ fi nance system and, in particular, the banking system, which will bring further indirect benefi ts to the Isle of Man Government.

Finally, Mr President, can I thank Mr Henderson for his support. Regulation: the industry itself in many ways is a new industry, although the business which is coming to the Isle of Man is, in fact, largely fi nance-related, at present, and because it is going through our fi nancial services industry, is regulated by our existing FSC, in many ways, in relation to the bank dealings, etc.

As far as regulation of space activity is concerned, this is an evolving situation, where new legislation is really only just starting to be developed internationally. I very much hope that the Isle of Man will be very much at the forefront of that, by bringing in our own legal structures, to enable more business to come through the Island. I am still – perhaps somewhat vainly, at the moment – hoping we may get the initial legislation into the House of Keys before the end of this particular session.

He, also, mentions that we need to maintain a robust defence against some of our neighbours, and I would agree entirely on that, because this is an unusual situation, Mr President, where, in fact, the Isle of Man could be in direct competition with the United Kingdom on breaking new ground here. Therefore, we have to be careful about the dealings we have with the UK, that they do not just vet our legislation on being appropriate from their point of view. That is fi ne, from the normal way we have our legislation vetted, but if it is being vetted because we happen to be in competition with them, I think that is a different ball game altogether. I think we need to be very careful and watchful of that situation.

Mr President, just as a further example to Hon. Members, before I fi nish, shortly after I had fi nished the presentation to Members yesterday afternoon, I actually had a call from a company in America which is involved in space tourism to tell me that they are coming to the Isle of Man next week, to look at the Isle of Man, to see about the possibility of moving their business to the Island.

This is completely out of the blue, but it is an indication of the sort of response we are getting worldwide now, to the initiatives we have taken. The Island really is at the forefront of world development on this. It is something which is very exciting, it has great possibilities for the Island, and I would urge Hon. Members to support the resolution.

The President: Hon. Members, the motion I put to the Court is printed at Item 6 on your Order Paper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Ramsey Grammar School Post 16/Medway BlockExpenditure approved

7. The Minister for Education to move:

That Tynwald approves of the Department of Education incurring expenditure not exceeding £218,710 on advance piling works, in respect of the proposed Ramsey

very important market for the Island to become involved in. It could well be even more important, as we go along and provide the needs for the industry that we are talking about.


The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Can I thank Hon. Members for their support for this, Mr

Houghton especially for his enthusiasm, initially. It is an exciting project. It is something which has great potential in the medium and long term for the Isle of Man and, in many ways, we are just getting into this industry at the ground fl oor, as it is starting to expand.

Hon. Member for West Douglas, Mr Delaney: I thank him for his support. He has asked a number of questions. I hope I can answer them all.

The reason the bid has been termed in dollars as well as pounds, although it is pounds we are working to, as far as Treasury, is, in fact, that the initial proposal was put to us by ManSat, which, as you know, has a base in Houston, as well as in the Isle of Man, so the original draft was drawn up in dollars for that reason.

The fees paid will be paid to ManSat as a company. Again, Members who were at the presentation yesterday got a document, I think, which outlined the structure of the company and the individuals related to it.

He refers to the conference fees. That is a fi gure which is an estimated fi gure at this stage, but it could… These fi gures which are in here are not necessarily… They are more indicative than precise, and there may be a need to move within the various headings, as the various opportunities crop up.

He asks what the X Prize is. The X Prize is an international prize which has been given for the fi rst private sector trip into orbit, which has to be repeated within 30 days. It attracted a huge amount of worldwide publicity last year, in America, where the Rutan brothers, I think, actually achieved just that. In fact, one of the brothers I think was over here for the Jurby Air Show, a year or two ago. It is, in many ways, related to not just ordinary space travel but to space tourism, which is becoming a developing interest now.

The Island put up a degree of sponsorship of this, to get our name put forward, last year. That, in turn, generated a huge amount of extra interest in the Isle of Man, by being associated with this international prize, and our people were, I think, fêted alongside Richard Branson, who was also involved with the X Prize, so we are rubbing shoulders with some big hitters on this.

It is intended, I think, to maintain this X Prize, and this is a provisional fi gure we are putting in, to enable our linkage with it, as well.

The ISU he relates to is the International Space University at Strasbourg. We have been working with them on a number of projects, and it will encourage our students to use the facilities of the Space University to gain wider experience of the industry.

He also mentions we insist that these people put offi ces on the Island. Well, ManSat itself, if that is what he means, already has an office on the Island, but, certainly, the businesses which we are dealing with and talking to at the moment, we are very anxious to encourage them to put their offi ces here. Indeed, as I have said, SES Global, the largest satellite operator in the world, has just announced that it is


Ramsey Grammar School Post 16/Medway Block – Expenditure approved

Grammar School Post 16/Medway Block replacement scheme.

[Reference: Item No 22 under the heading ʻEducation ̓on page 7 of the Isle of Man Budget 2005-2006 and as detailed in the Estimate of Capital Payments 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 (new schemes – Ramsey Grammar School Post 16/Medway on page 59 of the Isle of Man Budget 2005-2006)]

The President: We turn, then, to Item 7, Hon. Members, and I call on the Minister for Education to move.

The Minister for Education (Mr Anderson): Thank you, Mr President.

The three Items from the Department of Education on the Order Paper are all Items that are within the approved Pink Book Budget provisions, and can be seen on page 59 of that document.

In relation to Item 7 on the Order Paper, this is to do with the replacement of the Medway Block at Ramsey Grammar School, to which this Hon. Court has already given its unanimous support, at the earlier design stage. As Hon. Members have the explanatory memorandum, I will not read this all out, but I will just highlight the relevant parts.

The overall scheme included in the Budget entailed the demolition of the time-expired Medway Block and its replacement with a new two-storey building to contain a new post-16 centre and new art, craft, design and technology, special needs and environmental science facilities, together with refurbishment works to adjacent drama department and conversion of the existing post-16 area, to provide additional English accommodation.

The old Medway building was successfully demolished over the summer, and the departments contained, therefore, then decanted into the old Auldyn infants school and that has now been renamed the Ramsey Grammar North. They will be housed there until the completion of the project.

The proposed main building works have gone through the fi nal tender process, under the second stage of the two-stage process and this will enable us to seek Tynwald approval at the February sitting. It was, previously, hoped to seek full Tynwald approval this month. However, by bringing forward the piling elements before the main construction phase, it gives us a more realistic chance of achieving the construction completion on time – something that I must point out: the Department of Education projects have consistently achieved for several years.

I point out, once again, that Dalrymple Associates, who have helped us to achieve this, have once more been appointed our project managers in this.

Not only have most of – all of – the Department of Educationʼs projects been achieved on time, but also within budget. I should, however, point out that this site has got diffi cult ground conditions, there is a slight possibility that it might generate some extra costs that cannot be contained within that budget, and there is a possibility of going slightly over budget, if we are going to achieve the whole project within the original fi gure.

In conclusion, Mr President, progressing with these piling works, following the January Tynwald, will give us more fl exibility should any unforeseen programme delays occur during the main construction period.

Therefore, Mr President, I beg to move Item 7 on the Order Paper.

The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mrs Craine.

Mrs Craine: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to second this issue, this motion. I am very

pleased to see the Department of Education are moving ahead with this scheme. Unfortunately, Ramsey is situated on poor building ground, and the piling works are a necessary evil throughout the town.

But, I would say, it is particularly encouraging to see this coming forward, because the piling works themselves mean that the school will get this side of the works over and done with, before they enter into an examination period.

So, I would commend the Department on moving ahead on this rather industrial side of the construction, and look forward to the rest of the works coming forward, in due course.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I rise to ask: why is it so much we are having to pay out, as far as piling is concerned in the fi rst place? Was it put out to tender? How many people were on the tender, as far as that is concerned?

I am a little bit disappointed that we have heard from the Minister how he talked about getting things done in his Department in budget and on time. We have spent somewhere in the region of nearly £2 million on a secondary school for Onchan, and we have got nothing but a load of fancy papers again, or drawings, like we did 20-odd years ago, which cost us £½ million. I would hope that the Minister will not forget that project, because, at the moment, we have got nothing to show for the £2 million. At least a two-phase development, where we could have a sports facility in the fi rst phase in order to help both my constituents and the next-door constituents of North Douglas –

Mr Henderson: Exactly. Hear, hear. That was right.

Mr Karran: I hope that he will be coming in the near future to bring back a two-phase development.

I will not vote against this proposal today, but I am concerned about the comments about everything being on budget and on time. I am sure I speak for my two colleagues that represent our area, on that subject.

But I would also ask about the issue of the amount of expense, as far as the piling is concerned.


The Minister: Thank you, Mr President.I would just like to thank Mrs Craine, the Hon. Member

for Ramsey, for seconding. She realises the diffi culties that this site and many sites in Ramsey have, with unstable ground.

That was part of my reply to the Hon. Member for Onchan, that, obviously, when you have diffi cult ground conditions, it is very necessary that you make the right provision, before starting building. That is why this money is being spent at this time.

Naturally, the Hon. Member for Onchan is frustrated with the delay to the Bemahague scheme –

Mr Henderson: And North Douglas.


Ramsey Grammar School Post 16/Medway Block – Expenditure approvedFire Certifi cation Works to Schools – Phase 1 – Expenditure approvedDisabled Access Works to Schools – Phase 1 – Expenditure approved

The Minister: – and, indeed, that scheme, hopefully, will be coming forward for further consideration, later this year. (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.)

Hon. Members are well aware that there was an extra yearʼs delay enforced on the Department of Education that we had no control over, but we are working on that scheme to make sure that scheme will be effective, and it will substantially be different from the original Bemahague scheme, and the concept that was talked about then. But I am sure it will add to the provision in the Douglas area and I look forward, in due time, to bring that forward to this Hon. Court.


The President: Hon. Members, the motion that I put to the Court is printed at Item 7. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Fire Certifi cation Works to Schools – Phase 1Expenditure approved


That Tynwald approves of the Department of Education incurring expenditure not exceeding £350,000 on Fire Certifi cation Works to Schools.

[Reference: The Estimate of Capital Payments 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 (new schemes – Fire Certifi cation to Schools) on page 59 of the Isle of Man Budget 2005-2006]

The President: We take, then, Item 8, Minister for Education.


The Department has invested over £2.2 million on fi re precautions over the last fi ve years. These works have been mainly undertaken within the secondary schools.

This project is phase 1 of the capital project to upgrade the Departmentʼs primary schools and other buildings to meet current fi re prevention legislation. Under this phase 1 scheme, fi re precautions works will be undertaken at 24 primary schools, the Isle of Man College, Ramsey Youth Centre, Braddan Lodge and Ard Whallin.

The works to be undertaken include: the completion of the upgrade of our fi re alarm systems to L1 classifi cations; installation of Isle of Man Fire Service approved electronic door holders; installation of emergency lighting; provision of emergency fi re plans and fi re cabinets; works in reducing size of fi re compartments; and completion of the fi nal phase of the Departmentʼs installation of half-hour fi re door sets.

Notwithstanding the very signifi cant investment to date in fi re precaution measures, the ongoing inspections by the Isle of Man Fire Service for the Department have identifi ed that signifi cant further investment is required to meet current legislation standards. The Department estimate that a further expenditure of £1.4 million was required to complete these measures, and submitted a business case for capital funding, which was successful.

This phase was identifi ed within the 2005-06 Budget

for completion in 2005-06, and the balance, £950,000, was identifi ed under further payments. The Department has sought funding approval under the 2006-07 Budget process to the announcement of phase 2 scheme, which is another £450,000, which it is hoped will follow on from these works.


The President: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon.

Capt. Douglas: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.

The President: The motion I put to the Court is that printed at Item 8, that Tynwald approves of the Department of Education incurring expenditure not exceeding £350,000 on fi re certifi cation works to schools. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Disabled Access Works to Schools – Phase 1Expenditure approved


That Tynwald approves of the Department of Education incurring expenditure not exceeding £800,000 on Disabled Access Works to Schools.

[Reference: The Estimate of Capital Payments 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 (new schemes – Disability Access Works to Departments Sites Phase 1) on page 59 of the Isle of Man Budget 2005-2006]

The President: Item 9, the Minister for Education to move.


Under this phase 1 scheme, disability access works will be undertaken at two secondary schools and 12 primary schools.

The works to be undertaken concentrate on the provision of external access ramps, but do also include internal alterations, including provision of disabled toilet facilities at priority sites.

The draft Disability Discrimination Bill is likely to become statute in 2006 and enforceable thereafter. The Bill seeks to improve access for and reduce discrimination against people with disabilities.

In anticipation of the forthcoming legislation, the Department appointed the Islandʼs Disability Access Offi cer to carry out access audits at all our sites across the estate. The Department has estimated that some £3.65 million is required to be spent on disability access measures, and we have submitted a business case for capital funding, which was successful.

This fi rst phase was identifi ed within the 2005-06 Budget for completion in this year, and the balance, £2.85 million, was identifi ed under further payments. The Department has sought funding approval under the 2006-07 Budget process to advance a phase 2 scheme of £800,000 during 2007-08.

The works have been designed and tenders, detailed


Disabled Access Works to Schools – Phase 1 – Expenditure approved

costings, undertaken to establish the overall cost of £800,000 at current prices. The Department seeks approval for the fi rst phase of construction of £800,000.


The President: Hon. Member of the Council, Mr Waft.

Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr President. It gives me great delight, today, to second this motion

here. The Department clearly states that the reason for proceeding in this direction, so quickly, is the shortly to be introduced Disability Discrimination Bill. It is somewhat with regret that we have waited so long to progress this, but it does give recognition of the fact that there needs to be enforceable legislation, before we can get any work done on the ground.

I would just point out the request is for £800,000, but £3.65 million is required to be spent on disability access measures. It shows that, if this Bill was not imminent, we would not be discussing it here today. I fully endorse the proposal, yet it is sad to say we have to be set in motion by the Bill.

Having said that, there have been enlightened moves, in the recent past, to make provision for those children with learning disabilities in the schools. I am delighted to have seen that, and the Department should be congratulated on their efforts. This Bill will be a great leap forward, certainly for the Department of Education, and long may the enlightenment continue.

Should the Bill succeed, we will not only see schools, but all aspects of Island life having to follow the legal requirement to provide for the disabled within the community. All they are asking for is to be treated on an equal basis as everyone else, and live their lives free from discrimination of any kind, in any shape or form, and have reasonable access to public buildings, cinemas, hotels, work places and the rest.

Mr President, I fully support the motion here today, and recommend it to this Hon. Court.


Mrs Craine: Thank you, Mr President.I wonder if I could ask the Minister which were the

two secondary schools he was referring to, because, as my recollection has it, there was only one secondary school that had disabled access of any sort and that was Ballakermeen.

The situation, of course, still exists, that whilst external access ramps are to be created, very many of our schools, once you get inside them, prove immensely diffi cult to get around, even once you have accessed them. So, I know that this is an ongoing situation, but I know it is a step in the right direction.

I would, however, probably on behalf of the Minister, take exception to Mr Waftʼs comment, the Member of the Legislative Council, saying that we would not be discussing this Item today, because, in fact, it has been an issue that has tasked the minds of many Members, both of this Court, Board members, staff within Education, for many years, not only with regard to secondary schools, but we do have disabled children coming through in primary schools.

Very often, we have had to direct those children to schools

outside of their own catchment area, because we have not been able to provide them with the facilities in their own local school, which has been most regrettable.

But, as I say, I do welcome this, and look forward to the ultimate spend achieving the need that we all desire.

The President: Hon. Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President.I just wish to clarify a couple of points from the Minister,

but, in doing so, welcome the Department undertaking this work. In fact, I would hope that it would be Government policy that all Departments are advancing such initiatives, to ensure that their buildings are providing access for disabled persons, and, in fact, improving internally where it is practical so to do.

But can he advise whether or not in his Department undertaking this work that his Department is using the advice of the Governmentʼs Disablement Offi cer, to ensure that the levels and standards and requirements, including any other facilities in relation to disabled, in fact are being provided by somebody who understands exactly the situation, and it is not just being done, really, with the greatest of goodwill, by persons who are not really trained in that area.

So, I hope the Minister can give a positive comment on that.

Also, can he ensure that the standard of workmanship and the quality of the access will be correctly done and undertaken, because, in the recent past, myself, as Chairman of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Committee, and my Committee have actually been appalled at one Government area, where we have chased for about three years, and the standard of workmanship is quite appalling. It is appalling, because those with the responsibility clearly showed they had no interest in providing this access, and it is an issue that we are still continuing to pursue.

But, importantly, what we do not want to see is valuable fi nancial resources wasted by, on one hand, politically having the will to say we wish this work to be done and, in fact, having it done wrong, because somebody has not sought the correct advice to ensure that what is required for a disabled person is what is being put in.

So, I would just ask the Minister whether he can confi rm that is the situation, in relation to advice to his offi cers.

The President: Hon. Member for Ayre.

Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr President. I would just ask the Minister to confi rm, in his summing

up to this debate, that the changes which his Department are proposing will also take into account any revisions which may be necessary, following the Departmentʼs practice of following good practice, in relation to the recent introduction into the UK of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, which I understand came into force in the UK in December last.

I would hate us to undertake expenditure now which, in a couple of years ̓time, may be deemed to be inappropriate, and I would urge the Minister to ensure that the spend now is an effective spend.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would just like the Shirveishagh Ynsee, the Minister for Education, to clarify that the issue of


Disabled Access Works to Schools – Phase 1 – Expenditure approved

the Ballakermeen disabled access to the special unit will be part of this list. That is something that had not happened for several years, because of it being seen as lack of a priority, and I hope that that is part of the £800,000.

I would also like the Shirveishagh, if it is possible, to explain to this Hon. Court how he is going to put this work out on a tender basis, how many companies are going to be asked to be included, as far as it is concerned. This is an opportunity for lots of these ramps and stuff, so long as they are designed right, for small businesses to take advantage of doing this work, which is good and, hopefully, you will get a more competitive price and get better value for money.


Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. It is true that we have not, to date, had disability

discrimination legislation and it is true that we still have not got disability discrimination legislation. But I think it is rather deplorable when something like this is proposed that someone has to make a political snowball out of it.

This is progress which we should be welcoming. We should be saying this is a major advancement. We cannot spend our money all at once, although we would like to on issues such as this. We all know that many of our schools and many of our buildings are older buildings that are very diffi cult to make the transition from unable to access to accessibility, so it does take a lot to do that.

I do not think we should be frightened of legislation. I think the legislation has got to be reasonable, and it is not something which has to be done by a certain time, but I think we should also welcome that many in the private sector have actually carried out work, in anticipation of this happening.

The Isle of Man Bank is a typical example of work that is being carried out. Nobody recognises those particular advances that have been made. Many other people are also trying to help in this way – maybe only in a small way, but we should be encouraging them, not necessarily saying that it has got to be absolutely down to legislation, and somebody has got to be held to account for all of these things.

We should be looking at ways in which we can improve the life of everyone within our community and to make political snowballs out of it, I think, is really to be deplored.

I welcome this. I know it was something that exercised me, when I was in the Department of Education, and because of the immense nature of the estate and of all the different levels that were in schools… Even the local primary school, which is only something like 50 years old: the levels on that are amazing, and you would have to have lifts and stairs, steps and all of that to get access.

So, it is not an easy measure, but I do welcome it, and I do wish the Department well in securing further funds to improve access to our schools.

The President: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President.Firstly, I would like to thank Mrs Craine, I think, who…

No… Yes, Mrs Craine seconded this one. Thank you for Mrs Craineʼs remarks.

In relation to the comments she makes about the two secondary schools, one, as far as I know, is Ballakermeen

and the other Castle Rushen High School within this money being expended, at this time.

Obviously, when we do provide new buildings, like we are doing at the Medway Block in Ramsey, those provisions will be put in at the time. Obviously, we have to prioritise and we have to do what is best in the short term.

As far as the inside access, Mrs Craine knows a lot of our schools and knows the problems that we have. Most of this work is taking place on the outside of schools, but there is a signifi cant amount of money being spent on inside, where access is diffi cult, as well.

Mr Speaker welcomes the investment we are making, but wanted to know about whether we had liaised with the professionals, I guess, in this area. We have done: we are very pleased that we have Mr Richard Collister, who is in charge of our Estates and is a real professional and makes sure he works with professionals, to make sure that everything we do will be coming up to the standards that are not only in place and expected now, but, in relation to the point that Mr Teare was making, will meet those standards in the future, as well.

As far as the standard of workmanship is concerned, most of these projects are going out to small companies – I think Mr Karran made that point – but will be overseen, project managed by the Estates Department itself. I am more than pleased to bring any Hon. Members round to see some of the examples of the quality of works the Estates actually have delivered already, in the past. We have unsung heroes working in our Estates Division and, so often, we only see the frontline people in Education. These people do an excellent job in the background, and any time that any Member would like to see some of the standards of workmanship, we can show some very good examples of that. (A Member: Hear, hear.)

In relation to Mr Teare, I can confi rm that everything we are doing within this will meet future legislation that is coming through, and best practice within the UK, and that Disability Discrimination Act that he referred to.

Mr Karran made reference to Ballakermeen, which, obviously, he has concern about and has raised that in the past. There is a considerable amount of money being spent at Ballakermeen within this project, over £56,000, and the special unit there is one of the areas that there will be money spent on.

Can I thank Mrs Hannan for her positive comments. She, obviously, from her past history, knows the diffi culties we have in a lot of old buildings. We have had to prioritise things. With reference to the Bemahague scheme that Mr Karran was referring to earlier, obviously, buildings like Park Road we do not want to spend a lot of money in, because, possibly, in the future, we will be relocating that school to Bemahague, so we have prioritised things and that is why the two secondary schools mentioned, Ballakermeen and Castle Rushen, have been given priority.

To give you a bit of a fl avour, there are several primary schools, as well – Arbory, Ballasalla, Kewaigue, Rushen – all receiving works within this expenditure.

I am glad for the Hon. Court s̓ support and, Mr President, I beg to move.

The President: The motion, Hon. Members, that I put to the Court is printed at Item 9 on your Order Paper, the approval of £800,000 on disabled access works to schools. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.


DHSS supplementary vote – Debate commenced

DHSS supplementary voteDebate commenced

10. The Minister for Health and Social Security to move:

That Tynwald authorises the Treasury to apply from General Revenue during the year ending 31st March 2006 a sum not exceeding £6,500,000 being the additional amount required by the Department of Health & Social Security in respect of excess expenditure incurred in the provision of its services.

The President: We turn, now, Hon. Members, to Item 10, and I call on the Minister for Health and Social Security, Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Rodan, to move.

The Minister for Health and Social Security (Mr Rodan): Mr President, I doubt that anyone in this Hon. Court would ague with the assertion that the provision of State-funded health and social care is a fundamental part of our society today. The development of the NHS both in our own jurisdiction and throughout Great Britain was a cornerstone in the provision of State services, in the latter part of the 20th century, and continues to remain so. Almost on a daily basis, these services develop, in terms of their complexity, breadth and diversity.

What is also apparent, Mr President, is that the availability of such effective services continues to generate increased demand. Rather less palatably, increasing complexity and sophistication of services also leads to increased costs. But so long as services of this type remain the responsibility of the State – the Isle of Man State, shall we say – to provide, it must be recognised that they will demand a consumption of very considerable resources.

In the sense that the motion before the Court illustrates that the Departmentʼs current budget is inadequate to cover the expected levels of spending on its services, I do regret that it has been necessary to seek the further revenue. However, I make no apology for actually coming to this Hon. Court, to request additional fi nancing that is required to support the delivery of services for perfectly valid reasons, which I shall illustrate in my speech, Mr President.

Members will recall that the Department has required a supplementary vote in each of the past two fi nancial years. Let me say, at this point, that I do not consider that the reasons for this state of affairs can be simply said to be some inability to manage the Departmentʼs budgets effectively. To run the Department at a given level of activity, and to provide a comprehensive range of health and social service comes at a minimum cost. This is a cost that increases each year, not only through increases in activity and the introduction of new services, but through the effects of infl ation, the adoption of best working practices, to endeavour meeting risk management obligations, and with governance and Health and Safety requirements. All of these elements continue to place fi nancial burdens upon the Department.

Many Members will probably have heard the oft quoted fact that infl ation in the Health Service environment markedly outstrips the headline rate of infl ation and this has a signifi cant bearing on the Departmentʼs ability, year on year, to maintain the current framework of its health and social services. This, of course, is before one considers the cost pressure of the increasing referral rates to many of our services.

I think it would be fair to say that past approaches to calculating the extent to which the Department is provided with funding, within Governmentʼs overall spend, have perhaps simply looked at the level of available funding and were less conscious of very particular infl ationary pressures affecting the Department or of levels of activity.

The Department readily acknowledges that, ultimately, there are fi nancial limitations upon how much funding the Council of Ministers, after considering the recommendations and comments of Treasury and, ultimately, Tynwald, can make available to the Department each year. However, as I say, there is an inescapable cost to maintaining services.

I sincerely hope that the commitment of Government to putting the provision of health and social care in the forefront of public services remains unaltered. I have no reason to doubt that.

Nonetheless, if a position is reached where the provision of available funding does not allow for the maintenance or expansion of services, then the Department recognises that it will have to look closely at priorities, its own management costs and, also, the viability of maintaining services, in order to so refl ect Government priorities.

Mr President, in respect of the current fi nancial year, Members will be aware from the explanatory documentation that has been provided of the very particular areas of budget pressure that the supplementary vote motion today is seeking to support.

Firstly, with regard to Nobleʼs Hospital, by 31st March of this year, it is expected that the requirements for clinical supplies will have increased by 135 per cent since 1999. In monetary terms, this represents an increase from £2.6 to £6.1 million.

Funding allocation from the annual bidding process has not kept pace with this level of expenditure. Therefore, with each passing year the under-funding within this budget head has correspondingly increased, leading to pressure on the Departmentʼs out-turn fi gures. It is anticipated that the Departmentʼs budget for the current year will be under-funded to the extent of £2 million, with regard to clinical supplies, thus representing 30 per cent of the supplementary vote that the Department is seeking.

As might be expected, patient throughput has a major impact on these costs. Since the 2003-04 fi nancial year, the Department anticipates there being a 12 per cent increase in day cases at Nobleʼs Hospital and a 7.5 per cent increase in outpatients.

Changes in clinical practice towards providing services as day or out-patients for procedures that would previously have been as in-patients, not only increases throughput, which is welcome, but requires more sophisticated and expensive clinical supplies. This should come as no surprise, that treating more people actually costs more.

The Department experienced diffi culties in meeting its staff cut cost budget at Nobleʼs Hospital in 2004-05. Such costs comprised the part of the supplementary vote which was required in respect of that year. The principle reason for the adverse variance at that time was the fact that the budget for nursing, bank and agency staff was not adequate at the start of the fi nancial year to meet the projected costs.

During the current fi nancial year, this trend has continued. Hospital management has undertaken much valuable work in assessing the most effective ways to provide the requisite levels of nursing staff, cost effectively, and further controls over the extent to which bank and agency staff will be used



will be a feature of the remaining months of the fi nancial year.

Nonetheless, as a component within the supplementary vote fi gure the Department is seeking £1.1 million in respect of hospital staff costs.

The next element of the cumulative supplementary vote, Mr President, is the cost to the Department of providing pharmaceutical services, mainly within the community. Costs of this service, and, particularly, the cost of the dispensed medicines, is budgeted to cost £16.3 million, in the current fi nancial year.

In previous years the Department has seen growth in the cost of medicines, which has regularly signifi cantly exceeded the commonly accepted level of infl ation, with an average increase over the last fi ve years of approximately 8 per cent per annum. Due to the size of this budget, which is comparable with other jurisdictions, even a small additional increase above infl ation leads to a signifi cant over-expenditure for the Department.

Now, Mr President, the Department, up to this point, has successfully achieved a level of cost-effective prescribing which exceeds that of the UK, but, despite this, the additional cost of providing pharmaceutical services has still increased by £1.5 million, an increase of 17 per cent.

Perhaps the most pointed illustration of the budgetary environment, in respect of pharmaceutical service costs, is that the Department was provided with a budget allocation for the current fi nancial year, 2005-06, which was £600,000 less than the out-turn fi gure for pharmaceutical services of £17.5 million in the previous fi nancial year.

Mr President, we are all particularly conscious, and quite properly so, of the very particular need to recognise the uniqueness of the Isle of Man and not to slavishly adopt ideas of solutions that may be implemented by other jurisdictions. Equally, we need to recognise that the Island is not exempt from forces, be they economic, scientifi c or medical developments, or the forces of expectation that emanate from beyond our own shores.

The matters that I have been setting out today parallel circumstances in our nearest neighbour. The United Kingdom NHS is currently in the seventh year of an unprecedented nine-year boost to its resources. In England, the cash budget for the NHS has doubled since the 1998-99 fi nancial year, to £76 billion in this fi nancial year. By 2007-08, English NHS expenditure will be £93 billion.

Despite all this, in the current fi nancial year, the English NHS is heading for a net defi cit of £620 million. Every time you switch on the news, nowadays – and it was the same last night – UK NHS fi nancial overspend is the news item.

It is no surprise, against this backdrop of medical advance and the benchmarking of standards by the UK NHS for waiting lists, which we at least acknowledge, if not slavishly adhere to, pay agreements for staff in the UK, which we are obliged to parallel, if we want to attract staff to the Isle of Man, that, in this environment, the Isle of Man Department is endeavouring to deliver its services against unparalleled fi nancial pressure.

Mr President, I now turn to matters in respect of the Social Services Division. In a number of respects the service and fi nancial pressures affecting social services are a refl ection of the situation regarding health services, in particular the high level of demand for certain services, diffi culty in meeting expenditure, which has not had recognition of infl ationary forces and unexpected costs, such as the need for expensive

and diffi cult to predict spot placements for children in care. Allied to these costs have been those associated with the Departmentʼs representation at the Child Care Inquiry.

With regard to spot placements, as I am sure Members are well aware, the great majority of resources for child care are the subject of contractual arrangements with private sector providers. Additional arrangements have been agreed that, if a young person has to be accommodated over and above the number of beds provided under contract, these would be assessed as spot purchases. The cost of such spot purchases was agreed in the summer of 2004, at the time of the most recent contract negotiations with the child care providers.

The demand for young people to be accommodated has proven to be very high. At the present time, there are 15 young people in spot placements. It is typical of young people benefi ting from spot placements that they suffer from particularly acute emotional and behavioural problems. Young people with these diffi culties are especially diffi cult to manage in a conventional residential care unit and, consequently, need to be supported not only by a highly skilled team, typically on a one-to-one basis, but also to be managed on their own. Naturally, this combination of factors contributes to the considerable costs thus generated.

Mr President, earlier, I alluded to aspects of costs in the Isle of Man that replicate the situation in the UK. The child care environment here is equally representative of experiences in the UK.

At the present time, there are increasing numbers of young people requiring to be admitted to care in the UK, and a corresponding increase in the severity of the diffi culties that those young people are experiencing.

In recent times, the average overspend of child care budgets in the UK social services departments, attached to local authorities, is 28 per cent. The spot placements issue is a particularly thorny problem for our own Social Services professionals to manage.

In speaking of child care matters, Mr President, it is worth reiterating that an element of the under funding within Social Services that the supplementary vote will address is the legal representation that was required at the hearings within the Child Care Inquiry in recent months, most particularly during part 1.

Let me spell it out: £234,000 unfunded up to this point, and no budget provided or allocated for it.

I remind Hon. Members, at the recent Tynwald supplementary vote in October, I think it was, the increased cost of the inquiry did not include the costs to this Department or any other Department in respect of their own legal costs. These have still to be absorbed by the Departments themselves and we are expected to fi nd from our own resources.

As I have recently mentioned, child care services, including residential, day care or family centre, are provided by external contractors and at a fi xed yearly cost each year, the contract being increased generally in line with the rate of infl ation. By far the largest single element of the contract cost itself is that of staff costs, and the rates of pay for the staff involved are linked inevitably, whether we like it or not, to relevant UK pay agreements.

As a consequence of the contract provisions concerning this yearly uprating, the Department had to provide increases totalling £685,000 to the various contractors. This payment had to be made. It was a contractual obligation.

Unfortunately, although an appropriate bid for the



operating was made via the annual budget round, it did not prove possible for such an allowance to be included within the Departmentʼs budgetary allocation. The obligation to pay such a sum now contributes to the need to supplement fi nancial resources needed by Social Services.

For various reasons, Mr President, the work of Social Services with young people appears to be the element of social service responsibilities about which there is greatest awareness, and often great concern. However, the provision of services for adults is no less signifi cant and is equally vital.

The adult services budget allows residential, day care and outreach services to be provided to disabled persons, and this includes members of our community with physical, learning or sensory disabilities.

Significant services for older people also form a fundamental plank of the work undertaken by the adult service staff. Once again, demand for services and, therefore, pressure upon costs has been very high. This has led to more diffi culties in terms of meeting certain contract costs in the light of infl ationary increases.

For adult services, this came to the tune of £323,000 – a parallel of £685,000 I referred to for child care.

The cost of residential fees for unfortunate individuals who require specialist supervision and care in the UK, within which cost there was, again, no allowance for infl ation… The increasing dependency of residents in community houses has brought about pressures, in terms of the levels of staffi ng required to provide safe and appropriate care and a similar need to bolster staffi ng levels in our residential homes has added to what has proved to be overwhelming pressure.

The combined effect of all the matters I have spoken about has led to a situation whereby Social Services are likely to be underfunded at the conclusion, at the fi nancial year, by £2.4 million.

Consequently, Mr President, there remains one further area of budgetary pressure for me to address. Along with the infl ationary pressures that have attached themselves to other aspects of our budget, so, too, is this matter a consequence of external pressures driven by market forces – and I am referring to energy costs.

The Department has, as particularly shown by the installation of dual fuel burners at Nobleʼs Hospital – that is, burners to allow consumption of either oil or gas – has endeavoured to use the most cost effective fuel in that respect, and has also begun to use some vehicles which can operate using alternative fuels.

However, none of these measures have been able to insulate the Department from a very considerable increase in energy costs that has occurred within the fi nancial year. The current extent to which the energy budget will exceed the available funds is around £1 million.

Mr President, whilst the additional vote of £6.5 million, if approved by this Court today, will provide most welcome support for these areas of budget pressure that I have spoken of, the Department still has to address the matter of reducing its current year budget, so as to fi nd cumulative savings of £1.5 million and to bring our fi nancial year expenditure into balance.

It is far from ideal to have to do this, but the Department recognises the economic reality of matching services to available resources. We cannot spend money we do not have.

In looking at areas of cost saving, the Department has

sought and will continue to do so, to avoid front-line services as far as possible, but, where this is inescapable, to mitigate the effects on front-line services. Therefore, in identifying areas of cost reduction, the Department has sought to minimise effects on front-line services, and we have been looking elsewhere as a priority.

Cost savings will be, as far as can be achieved, derived from non-front-line services, and this is likely to include cessation of overtime, cancellation or deferral of proposed expenditure on vehicles, new furniture, training courses, attendance at conferences, printing and the like.

Certain repair and replacement building works will also be cancelled or put on hold, but, inevitably, there will be an impact in some service delivery areas, particularly with regard to health, and especially Nobleʼs Hospital.

With regard to Health Services, it is anticipated that the effects on Nobleʼs Hospital will most probably be in terms of reducing dependency on bank and agency nurses. To get a quick hit in a short time, we can only look at the major component of our cost, which is staff costs. Having regard to the fact that we are under contractual obligation and we have permanent staff, those staff costs, inevitably, will require us to focus on bank and agency nurses.

The consequential effect on services is still a matter, Mr President, to be fully determined, but will probably include a reduction in available beds at Nobleʼs Hospital. Now, any resulting delays to elective admissions or adverse effects on waiting lists will be minimised as far as possible.

Mr President, what I would say is ask the Hon. Court to note the fact that the bed occupancy at Noble s̓, at the present time, is around 65 per cent or thereabouts, and this compares very favourably with UK hospitals, which can typically be up to 90-95 per cent occupancy.

This, of course, is an average, and there are certain wards where the bed occupancy can be as low as 30-35 per cent. Therefore, there is some scope, regardless of budgetary pressure, for increased effi ciency in the way we manage those wards and the merger of wards, perhaps – and it has been highlighted to me, perhaps, in the area of gynaecology – offers scope for a reduction in bed capacity, without adverse effects on delivery of services.

This will provide an opportunity to rationalise use of existing staff, by reducing a dependency on bank or agency staffi ng. By reducing bed usage, staff can be redeployed as necessary to other areas. Closure of beds in areas where enhanced levels of bank and agency staff are utilised offers similar opportunities to reduce the number of beds.

This will, obviously, reduce the ability to treat both elective and emergency patients, and there is an element of risk to this. The overall effect is not expected to be too drastic, but could, for example, affect short-term cancellation rates.

It must be recognised that the care priority must remain to admit emergency cases to the remainder of available beds and, certainly, the impact on emergency care will be very closely monitored.

As I say, reducing capacity of in-patient areas, especially if we cease or reduce numbers of theatre sessions, will have an effect upon the elective workload.

Now, Mr President, quite recently, in recent months, the Department has been working very hard to reduce waiting lists, not least with monies made available to it as a result of Tynwald supplementary funding.

The impact on the orthopaedic waiting list, in terms of



in-patients, has been signifi cantly benefi cial to the public. We have seen in recent months a reduction in the length of in-patient waiting times – that is, after patients have actually seen the consultant. There is still tremendous pressure at the other end, to actually see the consultant, as an outpatient, but, because of extra theatre sessions and specifi c initiatives, we have been successful in reducing orthopaedic waiting lists.

Similar initiatives have been taking place, or are being currently planned, in respect of ophthalmic waiting-list time, and I would be very, very reluctant to see a reduction in those waiting-list initiatives. We will seek to avoid such happening.

But, again, I think we have to recognise that while there will not be necessarily swingeing cuts, as has been intimated by the media, there will inevitably be some impact on services. It would be dishonest of me to pretend that there would not be, but we will do our level best to minimise impact on the public.

As far as Social Services are concerned, the impact will be less acutely felt, because there are some opportunities open to us, in taking advantage of recruitment delays that have affected the opening date of the new Childrenʼs Resource Unit at Braddan. By delaying the recruitment of staff, we can save some £120,000, by way of example, from that particular measure.

Rationalising on-Island spot placements for young people in care also gives us an opportunity. This will not involve discharging young people actually from care, but by moving to different units, it gives us, I think, more cost-effective management of those young persons ̓requirements, and we believe there is an acceptable level of risk attached to that.

Mr President, in concluding, I feel I must make reference to the future of the Departmentʼs fi nances. I have described, in some detail and at some length, the reasons for the Department s̓ budgetary position, why we are in this position of overspend, and I hope I have been able to demonstrate that it relates to underfunding of specifi c budget heads.

We are also, inevitably, continuing to look at our own resources and the way we manage our services. The Healthcare Commission is, for example, looking at acute services at Nobleʼs Hospital, both in terms of standards of care but cost-effective delivery of those standards, and this is expected to report, as well.

There are, also, other opportunities that senior management in the Department are looking at, to bear down on the overhead costs of delivering our services.

I made reference this morning to the fact that we have rationalised elements of staffi ng in Markwell House, for example. The post of Deputy Chief Executive, for those who are unaware, has now been done away with, no longer exists. So, let it not be said that we are not looking to our own overheads and our own management to operate more effi ciently. I believe there is scope to continue to do this. I would give an undertaking to this Court that this will continue to be done.

But, in the forthcoming fi nancial year, 2006-07, the Department will be required to reduce the anticipated cost of providing its services to refl ect the availability of funding. If the economic environment proves to be such that there is a need to limit funding, to a point where it becomes impossible to maintain all existing Health and Social Services, we will be required to address the reduction of provision of certain services, or their elimination altogether.

Mr President, I am talking about existing services; I am

not talking about our wait list or our bids for new service developments, of which we have heard considerable words spoken in this Hon. Court in recent times. We all have our projects which, on behalf of the public and our constituents, we would wish to see introduced. I am not going to reiterate them at this point, we know what they are. I have got my own particular priorities for new health service development as an individual, not just as a Minister.

None of this is going to happen, Mr President. It cannot happen. We cannot be introducing new services, at a time we are reducing existing services that the public have come to expect. What we can do is to ensure existing services are delivered more cost-effectively. As I say, I believe we still have scope, in some way, to run in doing that.

But let not Members of this Hon. Court be at the Department for the introduction of new services, which will be very popular with the public, and require us to adhere to fi nancial strictures that require us to reduce existing services.

Mr Henderson: Thatʼs you told off, Peter!

The Minister: We will, as I say, strive to create effi ciencies and improved working, so that direct effects on services are a last resort, and I reiterate that undertaking, but, due to the size and complexity of the task to be undertaken, quick fi xes are not realistic options and are, certainly, not effective vehicles to bring about long-term budget restraint.

Now, the Department will also be bringing to the Council of Ministers, in due course, proposals, suggestions, policy initiatives, in respect of other potential areas of cost reduction that we have been specifi cally directed to examine.

These might well include, for example, non-means-tested benefi ts, the extent of exemption from certain Health Service charges, for example, prescriptions or dental charges, dental charges for the over-60s, for example. We are the only part of the British Isles – it has been a point of pride – of having such exemptions in place.

But we will be looking at this, in order to contain our costs. We will be doing this –

Mr Henderson: Thatʼs shocking.

A Member: What about staffi ng?

The Minister: – and the use of hospital facilities by private healthcare institutions.

Now, none of this will make any difference to this fi nancial year. All I am doing – shocking or not – is fl agging up possible policy directions for the future. That is all I am doing, and I feel I have a duty to fl ag this up.

This is not the chosen course of the Department. It is not the Departmentʼs wish. As I have said, neither I nor my political colleagues in the Department intend to preside over a decline or a reduction in services that have been built up over the years, to the public of the Isle of Man. That is not what we are about.

We are talking in such terms that would be a policy matter for Government as a whole, for all of us, as ultimately sanctioned by this Hon. Court. It is in your hands – not in my hands – whether this is the preferred way ahead.

Now, Mr President, I think I have probably said enough, but I hope I have given enough by way of background, and by way of specifi c justifi cation, to invite Members of this



Hon. Court to support the bid for the supplementary funding required by the Department of £6.5 million. I can assure you that money will be well spent and gratefully received.



Mrs Craine: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

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

Mr Cannan: Mr President, what price healthcare? What price the good health and wellbeing of our citizens? What price the care of the elderly and those that require benefi ts in the Social Services?

It is my contention, Mr President, and it has been for many years, previous debates, I have gone for extra money for orthopaedic surgery, for the Ramsey Cottage Hospital and various other things, because I believe that the health of our citizens is an absolute priority, in terms of Government expenditure. The alternative… We have had a fi rst-rate presentation by the Minister of Health – an absolutely fi rst-rate presentation, setting out the costs of providing healthcare.

The consequences of not providing suffi cient funds for that healthcare: are we to sit idly by, and say to people, waiting lists will now increase, when we have fought to get them down, existing services will have to be contracted? We have heard this from the Minister. Or are we going to say funding of the Health Service is a priority in terms of expenditure?

Honestly, Hon. Members, it is no use, on the one hand, not providing the money, and then, on the other hand, ringing up the Hospital administration as to why your constituent has had an extension of waiting time for their hip replacement or other surgery, ophthalmic surgery or whatever.

It is my contention that, at some point in everybody s̓ life, health care is required, from the doctors to the hospitals to the nurses, and many, many people require Social Services.

We have heard how the ladies in our community want breast screening and a recall service. That is a new service. The Minister has clearly stated he is wanting money to continue the existing services. Are we to turn and tell the ladies, ̒ Sorry, we would prefer to spend Government revenue on matters other than their healthcare? ̓Many of them come to mind: we were told a couple of months ago, £600,000 had been spent in disputes with taxi drivers; hundreds of thousands of pounds on branding the Isle of Man; £1 million pounds on legal fees for legal argument, over whether it was correct or otherwise, of the loans from Barclays Bank – not an investigation, but purely for legal argument.

There are many, many more items I could bring to this Court – is all that a greater priority than your constituents needing healthcare? I think not. I seriously think not.

In Social Services, it has been brought to my attention that there is a reduction in home care services. So, the handicapped and vulnerable persons are now left without care helpers on weekends and bank holidays. Is that not correct, Minister? Yes, it is.

Now, these people s̓ needs do not disappear on weekends and bank holidays. They are there all the time. They are

vulnerable people, and there are many other services, for child care… so many other services in Social Services that I believe are priorities in our expenditure.

As I say, I will not be repetitive of the Minister for Health. He has given, as I have already said, a fi rst-rate presentation of the serious situation. It is serious and that cannot be denied.

What the Department needs, I understand, is £8 million and Treasury has restricted it to £6½ million.

Mr Bell: The Council of Ministers.

Mr Henderson: On your recommendation.

Mr Cannan: Ah, nobody has responsibility, it is always some other body. The Council of Ministers has restricted it to £6½ million.

I have put before you an amendment:

Add at the end –ʻand further Tynwald is of the opinion that Treasury should make available further funds, if required, to a maximum of £1,500,000 to ensure that there is no reduction in the front-line services presently provided to the public by the Department of Health and Social Security.ʼ

It simply says:

ʻand further Tynwald is of the opinion that Treasury should make available further funds, if required ̓–

if the £6½ million that we are going to vote on is insuffi cient –

ʻto a maximum of £1,500,000 ̓–

not that it should be spent, but only if it is required, or some of it –

ʻto ensure that there is no reduction in the front-line services presently provided to the public by the Department of Health and Social Security.ʼ

(A Member: Hear, hear.) ʻPresently provided ̓– that does not even allow the new services that people are wanting, such as I have just mentioned, the breast screening call and recall service. It does not restore the home care services at weekends and bank holidays.

I wonder what Hon. Members think, if they have, in their constituency, a severely handicapped or vulnerable person –

Mr Henderson: We have, plenty.

A Member: We have, yes. We help them.

Mr Cannan: – and suddenly, at the weekends, they are left to their own devices. But their needs do not change –

Mr Gill: Seven days a week.

Mr Cannan: – or they are left at bank holiday, and that will be three days without a home care.

Hon. Members, I ask you to support the amendment, and



you will make your own judgement and your constituents will make their own judgement as to where the priorities are.

Of course, it is a declaratory resolution. I am not asking that it is all spent, and I know the Minister will only use it as a reserve fund on £6½ million, but I fear that all of us will be the fi rst to complain, when our constituents come to us and say, ̒ Why has my waiting time increased? ̓Only two years ago, I fought here to have money to reduce the waiting times, to improve the Health Service.

We all want the Health Service improved, and so, if there is a choice of expenditure, I know where my choices go: not to the margins of our expenditure, to the items which we think, on a wish list, might benefi t the Island.

Two hundred… or is it £140,000 to look at the scope and structure of Government? It would cost £155,000, I am told, to have a breast screening call and recall service. I think that is the money quoted. It is. (A Member: Yes.) And, yet, we could cheerfully vote for these sums. I did not, but the Members did, and I think it is wrong.

But as I say, Mr President, Members will make up their own minds. They will make up their own minds which are the priorities and if Hon. Members do not wish to give the Minister a buffer zone, £6½ million, and express an opinion to Treasury, on a declaratory resolution, that if, through circumstances beyond their control, they have to go over the £6½ million, to provide for our people what we believe our people should have, then I say to you, support the amendment.

The arguments have been set out very, very clearly, Mr President, by the Minister. The choices are before you. I hope that people will be put fi rst, in expenditure, and the health of the nation and the health of the people – the children, the elderly and the rest of us. All of us, at some time, need healthcare.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr President. I am very happy to second the amendment put forward

by the Hon. Member for Michael, and I think everybody will have great sympathy with the Minister – what he has had to tell us today, the very great diffi culties that his Department is facing. As he said, there is very little control that he has over many of the NHS costs, particularly, as he said, drugs and the clinical supplies. The increases in the cost of these are unprecedented, over recent years, and the more and more sophisticated treatments that have come out, the more the increase in the costs.

We could have the choice on the Island that we say, ʻWell, we are not going to introduce these treatments, they are too costly, ̓but surely, I think we would all here say that the people of the Isle of Man are entitled to receive the best of modern treatments. I do not think anybody would argue with that.

We are very lucky here, as I have said before, that we do not have a post code lottery, as they have in the UK, that if you live in a certain area you can get an expensive drug; if you live in another area you do not get that drug. Here, if you need the medication, you receive the medication and I, personally, would not want to see that changed.

But it all costs an awful lot of money, and we have heard and discussed, in the past, that very often prescriptions can cost £400 or £500 per month for a person. That soon adds

up and that price is increasing steadily, at a great percentage each year.

There was a survey, I remember in the local newspaper, it may be three or four years ago, questioning the public. What the public actually said was, that they were happy to pay greater taxes, if it contributed to Health Service provision.

Now, I know and understand that the Treasury Minister wants to guard the present low income tax rates. That is important for attracting people to the Island. But we missed an opportunity, a couple of years ago, when we voted to increase the employers ̓national insurance contribution by 1 per cent on the national insurance stamp. That brought in £5 million, I believe, at that time, and that went straight into the Health Services.

If, as I had wished at that time, we had also added that 1 per cent on to the employee, that would have brought in another £5 million, so by now we would have had probably £10 million to £15 million extra invested in the Health Service.

I would say to the Hon. Treasury Minister, at the Budget, next month, I would recommend to him that we bring it level, and we add that 1 per cent to the employees ̓national insurance contribution, because I do not think… it will not have any effect on employment. I do not believe there will be any public backlash from the fact – I believe the public will support it, to pay that small weekly amount.

In this morningʼs Item, we discussed the £5 levy that we put on to the car tax for public safety. There was no backlash against that. People know that we need to make the public safe and this, I think, is even more important – the health of the nation.

So, I hope that the Treasury Minister will seriously look at this recommendation. As we have heard, the increase in spending in the DHSS is going to continue to escalate, year on year on year. However much the Department is able to identify cost savings – and I am sure it will – I know the Minister, as he said, is going to review various matters within the Health Service, yet he should be reviewing the numbers of non-medical staff (The Speaker: Hear, hear.) that we employ.

The Speaker: Wasnʼt mentioned, though.

Mr Singer: He should be looking at the possibility of training more than 10 nurses on the Island each year, so we do not have to use as many of the bank staff.

There was an advertisement, last year, in the newspaper, from the DHSS, advertising for, I believe, somebody to be employed to go and teach the children to play – children who were in the hospital ward. They wanted somebody to go to the childrenʼs ward to help the children play. I saw that advert. This is surely not something we should be looking at, at this time. I do not know whether anybody was employed, at that time, to do that.

We should, also, perhaps look at sending… is it cheaper…? As I have found out in the UK, it was cheaper to send people to a private hospital for treatment. It was cheaper to treat an NHS patient in a private hospital, than actually treat them in the NHS hospital itself. So, is there any mileage in that? Perhaps the Minister would like to look at it.

But we do not get anything for nothing. If you want the services, you have to pay for it. We do not want, I do not think, and as the previous speaker said – the proposer of the amendment – we do not wish to see cuts. I do not, really,



see how we can have anything but cuts, if we are going to proceed in the way that we are.

We need the funding. If we need the funding, then we have to provide it. There is nothing more important than the good health of the nation and, as the Minister said, he does not want to preside over a service that is failing.

Yes, seek the effi ciencies, but I believe that Tynwald can have the choice, to recommend that we decide, here in Tynwald, on the standard of provision that we should supply to the people.

Therefore, I would hope that Members will give support to this amendment, because it just gives that extra safety net to the Minister: if he needs that money, then he has got that money. As the mover said, he may not need to use it, but I believe that he needs this money, because the costs are escalating, and we are not going to cope unless more money is put into the Health Service.



Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.Eaghtyrane, as far as I am concerned, the point that we

have reached this afternoon is nothing but a national disgrace. I say that not because of the Health Minister having to come here and request additional funding for his Department; I say it because he has got to come here, literally begging for £6½ million of additional funding, on the proviso – and I believe it is from Treasury – that he makes a cut of £1½ million to services, within the Health Service.

Now, let us be honest here, Eaghtyrane, the Health Minister has tried to portray it as savings, but, in reality, what we are going to see are cuts. There is no question of that, and the Treasury Minister earlier was shaking his head, saying that this particular qualifi cation on the agreement for £6½ million was a Council of Ministers ̓decision. By golly, Eaghtyrane, I bet it was a Council of Ministers ̓decision taken on Treasury information and a Treasury point, in any approval of £6½ million! I have got no qualms about that whatsoever: it was made on a Treasury presentation that that should be so and agreed upon. (Interjection)

I also have to say, Eaghtyrane, that I am astonished then we learn that the Health Minister has fl agged up the very real threat of cuts to front-line services and then, on the other hand, we can vote for £1 million to the space industry, to get that under way and all the other issues that the Member for Michael has fl agged up in his speech. That is okay.

When it comes to health issues, the Health Minister has to come here and (Interjection by Mr Cannan) make a plea on the qualifi cation that he has got to make £1½ million cuts, yet we can do all the other things without any qualifi cations. I think that is a terrible situation, and I think it shows that corporate government, as far as I am concerned, is in absolute tatters (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) – certainly after this morningʼs débâcle with the DoT (Mr Houghton: Ha!) – and now, this afternoon, Council of Ministers have, virtually, thrown the Minister for Health to the wolves, saying, ̒ If you want the money, you can go to Tynwald and youʼll have to plead your own wayʼ.

To the Ministerʼs credit, he has had the courage of his convictions, to come here and make a thoroughly honest disclosure with his statement, place the real facts on the fl oor of this place, and let us know what is truly happening within the Department, (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) and the

terrible dilemma he has found himself in.Whatever he does, whether he is pleading in the Council

of Ministers, he will be battered by the other Departments wanting their corner of budgets, and whatever he does here, he is going to face criticism from us for going over budget. But he has still come and he has still put his plea in, and he has made it detailed. He has had a real good honest attempt, in my opinion, to try and do that for us this afternoon.

As far as I am concerned, if the Ministerʼs plea goes, Eaghtyrane, of course we have got to fully support it, it is the health of the nation. Nobody here should be against what the Health Minister is trying to do, and that is certainly my view on that.

Now, unfortunately, Eaghtyrane, with giving the Minister my wholehearted support for this, and the predicament he fi nds his Department in, there are qualifi cations that I have to fl ag up. The Minister has read out a very detailed statement, with various issues and actions that his Department proposes to take. That is all strapped in to this debate and what he is trying to do this afternoon, and where he is going to try and make his £1.5 million savings – or cut, depending on which side of the fence you look at it. Certainly, I know quite well, Eaghtyrane, the signal that will go out from here in the press tonight is that ʻHealth Minister announces cutsʼ. I have got no doubt about it.

Well, anyway, regardless of that, I think the Minister has fl agged up his budgetary review system, and that the staff there in the fi nance section of his Department might have got it wrong for the years – certainly, this year. I want to know what is to say, will they get it wrong next time? I am sure there will be a ʻnext timeʼ, because the Departmentʼs services are demand-led.

The Minister says he will give an undertaking to save £1½ million next year, that is the deal.

Mrs Hannan and another Member: Itʼs this year.

Mr Henderson: If you cannot make ends meet now, and need £6½ million now, how on earth can you make this kind of public commitment, given the infl ation and energy costs we are having to suffer? How do we do that? How do we know the Ministerʼs budgetary sums will not be wrong again?

The fi nancial accounting mechanism that they are using, at the minute – BEAR – seems to have caught a fi rm dose of foot-and-mouth, as far as I can see. The fi nancial planners in the DHSS want their posteriors well and truly roasted for this (Laughter) and, certainly, for getting the fi nancial accounting wrong, (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) in planning service projections.

As an example, Eaghtyrane, we can certainly look at what happened at the new hospital. The Minister, again, fl agged that up as a budgetary problem and unprecedented pressure on resources. Let us just look at the issue of, ̒ Oh, we are out of space up thereʼ, and the excuse is, ʻOh, well, we planned it 10 years ago. ̓Well, as far as I am concerned, Eaghtyrane, again, that is absolute rubbish.

Better account should have been taken in the demographic and epidemiological projections, at that time, and it was not. We all said so, but, still, we have got to the situation where we have seen some great travesties up there.

Look at what happened to the appliance clinic: it was put in a shoe box, and then it had to go back down to the old Nobleʼs site. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) Now, that is not



just planning, Eaghtyrane. As far as I am concerned, that is disgraceful negligence. I think the Minister s̓ ̒ bear ̓needs an urgent revaluation and a vaccination here, to try and get the sums better and better calculations made for next time, so that better fi gures can be presented at budgetary rounds.

Then we have to look at: where are these massive cuts going to be made, I wonder? The Health Minister says that he is going to try and make no cuts to services, as far as possible, and mitigate those that there are. So, how is he going to perform this amazing conjuring trick, that would even out-perform David Copperfi eld?

Let us cut back bank nursing, we are told. That is interesting: so, who is going to cover the wards and other services and pinch points that we get? Let us cut staff overtime: that is even more interesting. No bank nurses to cover now, no staff to cover later, and, given the staff shortages that we already endure, what is going to happen to the front-line services for a community? Messrs Rodan and Killip must have been to Narnia, if we are going to believe this.

At point 5 of my observations, Eaghtyrane, I have personally witnessed cuts in the Health Service. You run out of medical supplies, you make do with compromises, disinfectant runs out, and they shut the first in-patient alcohol unit in the 1980s, when I was working in the Health Services – chopped.

There will be even more heavy reliance on generic drug prescribing, as we have heard. They will look at cheaper supplies for other things, and then, even more seriously and critically, staff are put under even more enormous pressure to make savings at a local level and work in compromised situations.

That is what will, ultimately, happen here, Eaghtyrane. The cut-backs will run down to the front-line essential services. It is not a question of ̒ if ̓and ̒ might ̓and fl agging it up that it could do; it is a fact of life. It is the law of fi nancial gravity and it happens everywhere.

What will we end up with? Staff working under even more pressure, reducing standards, elongating waiting lists and increasing infections, such as MRSA, cuts to staff training, which, ultimately, affect their professional registration and status, and cuts to services, whether we like it or not. As already we have seen, they have been highlighted as a possible factor, and I have no doubt that is what we will see.

Also, Eaghtyrane, and I think this is important, really, with that bleak picture painted, staff working under extreme pressure of this sort, expected to deliver services to a high standard, is unreasonable, unacceptable and should not be allowed, because it is unsafe.

We have seen what happens here, and we have seen the case of Margaret Collins, and her colleague that work in the Renal Unit, (A Member: Tut, tut!) (Mrs Craine: Shame.) doing serious overtime to patch that unit up and keep the services together, and working in their own hours, not declared, to do the extra bit, to make a go of that service. Because she did not have enough hours in the day to get some paperwork done, which is the nub of the matter, bang, summarily executed.

That is the sad fact of the matter, Eaghtyrane, and that message is out there, amongst all the ordinary staff on the front line. With hearing this kind of news and with these kinds of cuts being implemented on to them, what kind of pressures will they then face? What happens if they cannot have their

paperwork up to date, for the reasons of time constraints and so on? What comfort for them, Eaghtyrane?

Also, Eaghtyrane, I have to pull the Health Minister up on his point about energy prices. Great play was made of that about the fuel costs and so on, and I fully sympathise with that. But, by golly, Eaghtyrane, did I not get a sound battering, when I tried to raise rising fuel costs, when we were looking at winter heating allowances, and the rising gas and oil prices for our pensioners and everything, the other month? There was holy hoo-ha in here, and how we could not do this and it was infl ationary-linked that!

Now, to the Health Ministerʼs amazement, he has suddenly found it has come round and bit him on the leg, because it has hit him in his hospital heating bills. It is a lot more than he thought there! So, I would say to the Health Minister there, just think about the people who are struggling with their heating bills.

Now, we look at cutbacks, Eaghtyrane, and the Minister has acknowledged that they have got to make cutbacks at the top. But I say to the Minister, you have got to look more closely at the top sections of the Health Service, if we are going to have £1½ million of cutbacks.

How can you justify an £8,000 offi ce refurbishment? How can you justify a trip to Dublin to look at a smoking policy? Why could that not be done on the internet? Why could that not have been done on video conferencing? These are fi gures reported to this Court not so long ago.

We also had the insult the other year, Eaghtyrane – and I circulated the letter from the previous hospital manager, one Frank Inman – where he was demanding cuts in the services, to watch clinical supplies and so on, because pennies were tight at that particular time – somewhere round 1999-2000, that was. In the same letter, he was justifying a senior management team away-day to the Grand Island Hotel for a team-building exercise, but castigating the front-line troops to watch supplies and that there would be cuts.

Now, those kind of things need to be rectifi ed, Eaghtyrane. As for the top-heavy management structure within the Health Service, project managers, policy offi ce managers and all sorts of weird and wonderful titles that have mushroomed up, all over the years there, the whole structure of the management needs to be reviewed.

I know I have got a thing about it, Eaghtyrane, but when we are looking at the fi gures we have been asked to approve this afternoon, I think that is absolutely essential, no matter what. Put my prejudices to one side – that is not to mention a full-time artist who was apparently employed by Nobleʼs Hospital, at one point.

How can we justify these, on the one hand, and then run short of cash by the tune of £8 million, on the other hand? That is what I want to know, and the sooner the reviews of senior management are undertaken and further posts collapsed, the better. Then, I think, that will send a clear message down the lines to the front-line staff, that the Health Minister is serious in what he is trying to do, and not trying to lump it all on top of them – which is exactly what is going to happen, at the minute.

They will be the ones who will have to explain to the patients why their clinic appointment has been cancelled, why the certain supplies that they are used to enjoying are not there, or why they are using secondary supplies that are not as good.

Minister, you must do everything in your power to stop any cuts which are going to, ultimately, affect the front-line


DHSS supplementary vote – Debate commencedDHSS supplementary vote – Debate continued – Motion carried

services. You have mentioned it yourself, Minister, too: the breast recall programme, digital hearing-aids is another one, and the ophthalmic clinic. Where are we going to go with those?

I am being hammered on a daily basis, and I am sure everybody else here is, too, by constituents in trouble, and massive waiting lists. This kind of position, as far as I am concerned, Eaghtyrane, cannot be sustained. We must approve the Health Ministerʼs money that he has pleaded for this afternoon and, certainly, the amendment from the Hon. Member for Michael has to be supported.

How on earth can we say, ̒ Yes, you can have your money, Ministerʼ, but, by the same token, ʻYes, we are agreeing to the provision that you make a £1½ million cutʼ? Where does that leave him? Where is it going to lead him next year or the year after? I think we must approve or support Mr Cannanʼs amendment, as well, Eaghtyrane.

Gura mie eu.

The President: Hon. Members, I think it is an appropriate time at which the Court made a break. We will resume our deliberations… next to speak, at a quarter past fi ve, Hon. Members, will be the Hon. Member, Mrs Christian.

The Court adjourned at 4.46 p.m.and resumed its sitting at 5.15 p.m.

DHSS supplementary voteDebate continued

Motion carried

The President: Hon. Members, we continue with our debate at Item 10. As I indicated when we made our break, I call the Hon. Member of Council, Mrs Christian.

Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President.It is not unusual that, from time to time, we have before

us in the Court motions which seek to provide extra funding to Departments, above and beyond that which we have voted at the Budget for a particular year. This time it is for the DHSS, its Health and Social Services, in particular. So, there is nothing particularly new about this. Perhaps the magnitude of the sum being sought is substantial, but we have to bear in mind that the budget of that Department and its overall workings are substantial.

For many years, Mr President, I would say even since the Health Service began, there have been tensions between the delivery of service and the budget provision for health care. These tensions, certainly over the last decade, I would say, have been apparent, particularly in that health service inflation has increased faster than that of the general expenditure in the Island.

Over those years, that variation has not always been recognised within a Budget. So, for years the Health Service has been striving to manage within this pincer. That is not to say that the DHSS has not been well treated by Council of Ministers and the Treasury, with regard to the monies which have proportionately been given to the Health Service over the years, for the provision of their services.

I do think that the arguments put to Council of Ministers at Budget time have generally been heard and that the DHSS has had a fair crack of the whip, generally speaking, in

terms of its budget. Nevertheless we know, year after year, that there are pressures for that Department, in terms of the demand which is put upon it by the public, and, indeed, by the fact that much of its delivery is service led and cannot be predicted accurately.

There has been some comment today. I have to say I will be supportive of the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr Houghton: What about the amendment?

Mrs Christian: Every year Government budgets at the beginning of the year and we recognise where we have decided, as a body, the elements of expenditure are going to fall. There has been some comment today about: ʻWell, we should not have been spending money on this or that or the other, that this is more importantʼ.

Healthcare and Social Services are very important to our community, but let us not confuse in our minds the fact that, for example, today we have voted a considerable sum towards the development of the space industry in the Isle of Man – unanimously, as I recall.

Mr Houghton: It is an investment, not a cost.

Mrs Christian: We all agreed about that. That was in the Budget for last year and we all agreed it.

Today we are being asked to vote for a sum of money which was not specifi ed in the budget for the DHSS. The arguments have been put forward as to why we should support it. I am sure we will all accept those arguments and there is clearly funding available within the Budget for this year to meet this defi cit in the DHSS, or this Order would not be on the Order Paper today. So, let us just calm down about what provision we are making here.

There has been some absolute nonsense talked about the way in which the DHSS budgets are prepared: the Hon. Member for Douglas slating those who do the fi nancial projects. One wonders whether he has ever had a departmental budget to look at. (Mrs Hannan: Hear, hear.) He has, as I understand it, sat in Council of Ministers through a budgetary process.

Mr Henderson: Oh yes.

Mrs Christian: There is not a budget in this Court that has not been cut back from the fi nancial provision that they have sought to have, for the provision of their services. In fact, this year every Department will be saying to Council of Ministers and Treasury: ʻThis is what we need for our services going forwardʼ. Whether you get it is another question, and when you do not get it, then you have to try and make ends meet in the best way possible. So, do not slate the fi nancial planners. I know, from my own experience, walking in that Ministerʼs shoes –

Mr Henderson: Point of order, Eaghtyrane.

The President: Which is, sir?

Mr Henderson: It is in the Ministerʼs brief to us with regard to severe problems with the budgetary process.

The President: Okay, Hon. Member.

Mrs Christian: Mr President, I think that the Minister,


DHSS supplementary vote – Debate continued – Motion carried

in illustrating the diffi culties with the budgetary process, was for unforeseen elements. There is no doubt at all, so far as the budgeting for anticipated elements, that that is done effectively, but you do not even always get suffi cient monies to meet those, Mr President. Let us be realistic about that.

There has also been some comment about the new hospital and how that has gone wrong. It has not gone wrong, Mr President! The forecast with regard to the development of services at the new hospital anticipated many changes, including increasing amount of day cases, increasing throughput in beds, all of which bring with them, the more people you see, the more expenditure you are going to have and the more you shorten your lists or get people through quicker. You cannot have it both ways. I do think there is an element here of the Island considering its position, with regard to having its cake and eating it.

The Hon. Minister has illustrated quite clearly that, in the United Kingdom, day after day, we see about the pressures on the National Health Service there. By and large, I think that we feel that our DHSS provision is comparable and, indeed, better than that provided in the United Kingdom, but let us make some comparisons about what we contribute for our Health Service.

Do we contribute as much by way of income tax as a United Kingdom resident? No, we contribute less. Do we contribute the same amount by way of national insurance as a United Kingdom resident? No, we contribute less. Do we contribute to Social Services the same amount as a United Kingdom resident who largely pays for Social Services through local authority council tax or rates? No, we do not. So we are expecting the same or better service, but not expecting to pay for it.

Mrs Crowe: Thatʼs right!

Mrs Christian: We have got to be realistic and serious in our consideration of what our policy is going to be, with regard to funding services. It is easy to say: ʻWe want this service, that service and the other serviceʼ. If the Hon. Member for North Douglas feels pounded by people who are getting on to him about specifi c areas, consider how much more the members of that Department and the Minister feel pounded on every single issue which is regarded throughout the Island as a priority by somebody or other. (Interjection by Mr Houghton) They know what the need is.

For years any Member or Minister who has been in there will tell you there is a long list of priorities for developments. That Department has the responsibility and the diffi culty of deciding which matters they can develop and progress. It does not need the whole of the Court to be badgering them about more, and they, one hopes, and, indeed, in my experience did, try and evaluate those in a rational way. To be honest, in some cases it is very diffi cult to choose between oranges and apples when you are trying to determine which is more important, very diffi cult indeed.

So, not only do we, I believe, because we can, support the Minister in seeking this funding today, I think, in terms of the budget which is coming forward shortly, we should be giving serious consideration to these other areas of funding our services. This is an election year, so it might not be popular to suggest that income tax goes up or NI contributions are added to employers (Several Members: Employees.) employees. (Interjection by Mr Cannan) Employers are already paying, I accept that.

There would be no stomach in many cases, I am sure, for increases in charges, but, again, if we compare ourselves with the health service in another island, we are much more generous than they are in another place. So, let us get real and put ourselves in a position of not just fi ghting for a particular service or corner, but having to rationalise all of these issues, not only what is needed in the DHSS, either through Social Services as compared with Health Services, or what do the population outside see as being priority? We still have to recognise that some provision has to be made to other Departments, in order that we can fund a DHSS at all. I think that we do seriously need to give greater consideration to those issues at Budget time.

Mr President, with regard to the amendment which is proposed, it is a declaratory resolution. I will wait till I hear a few more expressions of view on this particular one. In a sense it means not a lot, because the fact of the matter is that if the DHSS cannot manage to come to the end of the year within this extra £6½ million – and I believe their estimate was somewhat higher than that – they are faced with this £1½ million of reining in, which will be extremely diffi cult, I think, in the time frame that they have available to them.

We are now in the middle of January and they have got till the end of March, extremely diffi cult. The prospect is that they may well have to come back for extra money, but there has always been a mechanism for that vote coming before the Court and, indeed, this will not stop it having to come before the Court. If the Department needs more money, then it will come back and we will vote on it.

At that stage no doubt it will be for the Minister to argue that either he does not want to cut certain services, or that it has not been possible to constrain the expenditure in certain areas. I am sure that would be sympathetically heard by the Hon. Members of the Court.

At the same time, when we deal with next yearʼs budget, I think that it might be useful for the Minister to spell out, as we have tried to do from time to time, what the budget means in terms of the year going forward, because often in our departments – and the Department I sit in now is no different position – we will be faced with a budget which will not allow us to do what the Court expects us to do. We should be making – I have said it before – it clear what we cannot do within our budgets.

The President: Hon. Member, Douglas North.

Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President.We have all heard the comments of the Hon. Member

of Council, Mrs Christian, who has set her case as former Minister, as regard to the goings on in the Department, probably, as I say, during her time. She made comment on whether money is well spent in the Department.

Can I tell her one area that she does know where it is not well spent and that is the area of Social Services that concerns care homes? Millions and millions of pounds have been wasted in that heading alone. (A Member: Hear, hear.) As well as inquiry after inquiry and negligent conduct after negligent conduct, covered up by that division. That will be made quite apparent when all these various reports come back to this Court, as long as those reports have clear detail in them, as to what happened and what we all know has happened.

Mr President, the case has been made, as far as Health Services additional monies is required. I shall be supporting



the Hon. Member for Michaelʼs amendment to put back into the Health Services, or into the Department, but hopefully mainly for the Health Services ̓ use, this additional £1½ million to cover the areas that the Minister has already made clear, that the Member for Michael has made clear, that my hon. colleague has made abundantly clear, to which I will not be going back over that ground.

Mr President, it leaves me with nothing more to say than we need to get down and support this, just like when we supported the investment of the future income for this land in the space industry. This is an expense that we have to carry. As the Member of Council has already said, it is justifi able and we must simply just vote on it. Mr President, that is what I would commend everyone in this Court to do.

The President: Hon. Member of Council, Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President.I was not going to make any contribution to this particular

debate, but I think the two Members from North Douglas have certainly brought me to my feet. Both Members actually have said they will support an amendment that means nothing and then they criticise the Department for what they have done and why did they spend the money and they could have spent it in a better way.

Hon. Members, we have a situation where we are going through this particular fi nancial year and the Department of Health come to Council and state that they are going to be overspent. They are going to be overspent by a great deal of money. Surely, Mr President, I would have thought you would have done this in your own homekeeping if you realised that you were going to be overspent during the year and you could ascertain that it was defi nitely going to be a minimum of £x; if you could take the blow during this fi nancial year, surely you would take what the minimum would be – which, in this case, is £6½ million – which has been demonstrated and presented to the Council of Ministers by the Minister and all the members of his fi nance team, that this is the reality.

So, what we are saying to Hon. Members today is: ʻWe take the £6½ million blow today. ̓We give the Department of Health and Social Security the assurance that they have got that money, but it is traditional and it has always been the case – and the Hon. Member, Mr Cannan, knows it only too well – that Departments run through the year and at the end of the year, when they can put all their accounts together, they then know whether they are overspent or they are underspent and that is the situation I would say to Hon. Members that we face today.

We have said to the Department of Health and Social Security: ʻGo away and see what you can do to address the very points that the two Members for Douglas North have said. These are areas where the money could have been spent more wisely. ̓And, if the Hon. Minister who, I thought, put forward a presentation this morning showing Hon. Members that front-line services would not be cut – that it was the other areas of the periphery of the DHSS that would be looked at –

A Member: That was exactly what he said.

The Chief Minister: And the actual – if they can make £1½ million – who knows? I donʼt know – it could come

in April next year that the DHSS come and say, ʻI am sorry but, in fact, all those things we have looked at, we have only been able to reduce it by £800,000.ʼ

It might be that they come back and say that they are still £2.3 million overspent. And then we, as a Court, will have the reality and that will be that there will be a motion on this very fl oor – not as a declaratory resolution – but it will be a monetary resolution that says: ʻ This is what we have got to spend in the DHSS. ̓

We are not hanging the DHSS out to dry, but, Hon. Members, we have got to have some control over the way in which moneys are spent. The same as we have very little control, but we have to budget, so that the economic parts of Government are also going out there to try to raise the money, so that we can actually spend it in our National Health Service and our health.

The other thing we must remember, it is alright going for one-offs. One-offs – they happen this year. The money comes in: the money has gone. But you must remember that every time you put more into a Department s̓ front-line service, my word, you will never ever claw it back again, because once you put that service in, that service is there to stay.

So, what is the logic of this whole exercise? It is simply that we know that the DHSS are defi nitely £6½ million overspent. We take the blow now. At the end, in April, after we have got all the other Departments – let us face it, there could be Departments of Government that come in and they have not spent their money and they will be returning some to Treasury – I wish… However, the situation is quite clear that that is the time that you make your fi nal judgement as to what does the DHSS now really mean. They have gone away. They have done their best. They have tried to concentrate their minds. They have looked at these other services and this is now the position that Hon. Members know.

Of course, we come forward with a declaratory resolution from the Hon. Member, Mr Cannan. I would say that the Minister for Health and Social Security must be sitting there, thinking, ̒ Gosh, this is great. I come to the Court looking for £6½ million and, blow me down, if I vote for the amendment, I am going to get my £1½ million and off we go.ʼ

Hon. Members, what I am saying is, try and look at this over the whole of Government. We are trying to keep the whole of Government within – and you know the Minister for the Treasury next month has to come forward – he is not allowed to budget for a defi cit. We know the regulations applying to that. We are trying to look at the moneys available and at the moment, the moneys are available to help sort the DHSS out with that large amount – and it is a large amount – right now and then we will take the other action when it is required in April or May next year.

That is the position, so if you went for this declaratory resolution which, in a year of election, I can understand. It sounds great. You could do this, you could do that, you could do the other… And I was the mover of the amendment that gave the Minister – and he need not cut anything. That is all very, very good stuff but, honestly, Hon. Members, decisions are hard to make. (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.)

But, my word, at the end of the day, you have to make those decisions and that decision that was made was not done lightly. It was not plucked out of the air. We had a real, intense inquiry into the DHSS and, yes, we have got problems in the DHSS – the gentleman had to go into hospital himself just before Christmas. You know, there are problems there, but we are saying to the DHSS: ̒ Even if you need to second



somebody else in there, let us get the thing sorted out, so that come April next year, at least we know exactly what has been spent and what is not going to be spent, better fi nancial management and then we can take it forward.ʼ

All I would say, Mr President, is that, Hon. Members, we are not hanging out the DHSS to dry. What we are saying is: ʻGo away, see what you can do within those areas. Please do your bit to try to bring down what was an £8 million projected defi cit to somewhere nearer the defi cit of what we have on the motion today. ̓

I would say to Hon. Members: ʻGo for the motion. Go for the £6½ million. ̓That gets the DHSS the lump of what they are overspent and then we can look at the situation come April and we will really see what the DHSS has been able to do, what it is they have been able to control, what it is that, then, perhaps, becomes something that Members might very well feel gets to the priority of services.

That is when we will really know and that is when we can make the decision, Mr President.

The President: The Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane.I just wonder if I could, perhaps, look for some clarity

here. The motion is, as I understand it, that we will consider £6½ million but, in the briefi ng… explanatory memorandum we had – point 3 – this support, the £6½ million is not as I understood the Chief Minister to have described, but it is clearly that this support from Treasury is conditional upon the Department identifying cost savings of £1½ million.

Capt. Douglas: Yes, that is what is says.

Mr Gill: It is conditional upon that. I…

The President: What I will ask you to vote on, Hon. Members, is what is on the Order Paper.

Mr Gill: Yes, indeed. But I would just like some clarity from the Minister, or whoever, that that is the condition that we are being asked to vote upon, that it is on them identifying £1½ million, i.e. the differential between forecast overspend and supplementary vote.

All I would like to say, in addition to the comments that we have heard, is that we were told in the autumn by the Treasury, and they issued a revenue account report to Members early in October – 5th October – at which time, we were told that there was no Department which was going to be overspent, that we anticipated that all Departments would be pretty much… or to budget. I asked a question in regard to that on 1st November and the response – it was a Written Answer – but if I could just read the short part of that Answer from the Treasury Minister:

ʻThe Department, concerned about its vote allocation for the current year –ʼ

and I understand that to be the DHSS, so I think if we work on that assumption:

ʻThe [DHSS], concerned about its vote allocation for the current year, has been expressing those concerns since the Budget in February 2005.ʼ

So, in other words, they knew that the Budget, with

their fi nancial regime, was going to be overspent from the off – from the time it was spent.

ʻThere were discussions, including a meeting with the Treasury on 12th October, and a further offi cer meeting on 19th October, at which the extent of the potential overspending was identifi ed to the Treasury.ʼ

Well, February to October to identify an overspend – and then the subsequent advice was, come back as soon as possible with a supplementary vote, certainly, as soon as possible before the end of the fi nancial year, and that is what the Department is doing.

But, as I understand it, the deal, between Council, is: ̒ We will support you to the tune of £6½ million, but conditional upon you identifying £1½ million. ̓I will vote for that. I do not know where the £1½ million will be. We have heard the Minister say that there is scope for some savings. If there are not, then, as the Chief Minister says, they will come back.

But that is not the advice we are being given. We are being given a different slant now, that it is not conditional any more. Well, it is or it is not. Either we are being asked to disregard this explanatory memorandum or we are not. If we are, let us have that clear. I will certainly vote for the £6½ million. We canʼt not. But I have to say – and I doubt if I will be alone in this – maybe I will be alone in stating it – that there is scope in any Department, including my own in Home Affairs, where a review of services and a review of cost effectiveness will identify savings and, no doubt, will also identify areas where unmet needs exist and we would have to consider providing for those.

So, I do not say that the balance of that will be a smaller budget. I do not know. But I do think that we need to look at that and, if we vote for the amendment as I understand it, notwithstanding that it is declaratory, what that will mean is that it will take the DHSSʼs eye off the need to review that with the same scrutiny and the same discipline that they might do if we just vote for the motion, which will still provide for their needs. That might not be populist and that can be spun into being ʻuncaring ̓or whatever. Well, that is the risk.

But I just wonder if the Treasury Minister could respond to those points and, maybe somebody on behalf of the Department, or the Minister summing up, could also respond to the points that I have raised and particularly the concern that I have, that if we vote for the amendment, basically we are saying: ʻIt does not matter if you make half a job of it, because we will vote for it, probably, anywayʼ. It is a nod and a wink declaratory motion and I do not think it fundamentally addresses the diffi culties which we know that the DHSS face, not only this year but perennially.


Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President.I shall be brief but I think it is important, in this sort of

debate, that we actually make sure that the decision is taken, which is going to be taken next month. (Mr Delaney: Hear, hear.) For the rest of the year, the rest of this fi nancial year, as the Chief Minister said, is nearly fi nished. Any savings in this current year will be very hard to achieve, but we are talking about next year.

I do believe that the Minister has spelt out... There is no Minister, in my view, of the DHSS in the last 15 years that has had their sums absolutely right – for all the very sound reasons that have been espoused this afternoon by the present



Minister and espoused over the years by the former Minister. The only difference, this time, is that we are coming in the current year and I think that has only happened once in the last 10 years, where we usually wait until afterwards and then...

Let us get something quite clear. The budget of the Department of Health and Social Security is about £200 million, give or take a few digits. £8 million overspend, if we take £1½ million plus £6½ million is 4 per cent out. Am I right? Something of that nature. Not uncommon, not unheard of in budgeting terms. It is the massive sums involved that make the £8 million large.

As far as I am concerned, I think that Mrs Christian has been clear – I do not think she was justifying herself – I think she was just telling it as it is and, as far as I am concerned, I thought there was a load of logic.

We are proud in the Isle of Man that we pay less tax. We are proud that we pay less in NI. We are proud that we pay less in charges. We are proud of that and the service we get. Speaking personally, as a family, I know what the services are provided by the Health Service in a fi rst-hand way in the last couple of years for members of my family and I would not have it any other way. It is a credit to those who are at the sharp end delivering, directed from the top.

Luxury – health is not a luxury. It is a blessing and a privilege. I do not believe... My position is quite clear. You do not tax the sick. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) You tax those who are fi t and well and able to do it. However, I say that because I am not saying ̒ tax ̓as such. I am saying that the National Health – and I want this to be quite clear and I hope it is not too late – that we increase the national... You would not think this would come from me, because I opposed it the last time for the very reasons that there was no occasion for it and it was an attack on the lower paid by putting it.

I am now saying those in work should pay the extra one per cent, like their colleagues, to match their colleagues ̓contribution, because of the reasons spelt out today of the drug increases, the energy increases etc, ad infi nitum. I want to make it quite clear that I do not dodge that responsibility, it is not hiding behind the minister of the day. It is not hiding behind the delegated responsibility of the Member for Ramsey who has got it. It is not giving a clear lead to the people in charge of fi nances where I think it should come from. All of us should ask where is the money coming from. It is not hidden in buckets for the other Member in the Treasury or for us to dip into and dish out.

As far as I am concerned, there is a crying need for more investment because of the costs that are apparent. I believe we should ring-fence the one per cent and put it to Health and Social Services for priorities which should come before this Court. So, I am on my feet to say that I expect, in the next Budget, because of what we have been told today, that we should increase the one per cent. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I say that as a clear guide and lead to the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers.

Therefore, I will be supporting the resolution as on the Order Paper.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Bell.

Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr President.I welcome the contributions of the last few speakers,

because I think they have brought some common sense and calmness and rationality back into the debate again after the hysterical opening contributions from one or two Members,

who really are giving a totally false impression to our people outside, that swingeing cuts in our Health Service are being demanded by Treasury and the Council of Ministers.

Nothing, Mr President, could be further from the truth. The measures that are being proposed today are an attempt to help the Health Services, not just for this year, but for the next few years, to get control of the expenditure, so that, in fact, in two or three years ̓time, if the demand on the services do not grow in line with the growth in the economy, then we will not be put in the diffi cult position, perhaps, of having to make cuts. That is the purpose behind this.

Mr President, if I could just start my contribution by making one or two points, because the impression certainly has been given by one or two people that the Health Service is underfunded, it is being treated unfairly, it is expected to make cuts where it should not take place.

If I could just point out, from a Budget point of view, Mr President, in the years 2001-02, which is four years ago, the gross Health expenditure was £82.9 million. In 2005-06, this year, the gross expenditure is £118.7 million and with the extra £6½ million which I am sure will be voted tonight, this yearʼs expenditure on health to date is £125.2 million for a population of 76,000 people. In that, Mr President, I do not think anyone can say Government is being parsimonious and spending less or paying less attention to the health requirements of our people than any other jurisdiction.

The average budget increase, Mr President, over those four years, the increase has been 9.4 per cent per year. A real increase in expenditure on Health of nearly 6 per cent per year; not over the whole four-year period, per year.

The problem has arisen because Health expenditure during that same period has increased by 11.8 per cent per year. That is where the differential comes in. The Health expenditure has increased way ahead of the growth in the economy and the ability of Government to grow its revenues from that economy.

The other issue which has added extra pressure, Mr President, is the fact that Health-staff costs over that same period have grown by 48 per cent. Nearly 50 per cent growth in four years in the cost of Health-staff wages. These are the sort of statistics, Mr President, which have brought us to where we are today and where the problems arise.

So I do not think, Mr President, that in any shape or form, could Government be criticised for failing to support the Health Service. In every Budget, certainly every Budget I have been involved in, and as far back as I can remember, Health has always been the top priority. When budgets have been cut back for other Departments, Health has always been protected. If there has been surplus money available it has always gone into Health. I cannot remember a time when that has not been the case. So the frantic message which one or two Members have sent out that we are treating Health Services unfairly and cutting back on services could not be further from the truth. (Interjection by Mr Cannan) It does not contradict a thing.

What is being asked, Mr President, is that out of a budget of £125.2 million to try and bring the Health Serviceʼs expenditure some way more under control, that £1½ million in marginal expenditure be found to try and reduce that overspend. £1½ million out of £125.2 million! So I think it needs to be put into context. We are not asking for frontline services to be cut. The Council of Ministers has not asked for frontline services to be cut, the Minister of the DHSS has not said he is cutting frontline services. He has made it quite clear



where he is looking for the savings to be made and I wish him well and I hope he can make that.

The problem is, Mr President, if we have an excessive overspend this year that that will roll on into next year and it will roll on into the year after and it will multiply. So, by getting our fi gures balanced this year, in the next couple of years, we will not be faced with the sort of problems that we are facing today. We will be starting to rein it under control.

In relation to the DHSS wider spending over the next couple of years, Mr President, quite apart from the other demands which are going to be put on it, we are likely to be faced with what is at the moment an unknown fi gure which is going to be generated by the child care inquiry, which undoubtedly, knowing what these inquiries are like, we will be running into several millions more, which are going to have to be found for the DHSS. (Mr Houghton: Absolutely!) This is on top of the normal annual growth in demand of expenditure and no matter how much we tax our people and no matter how much we try to get the economy to grow. There is a limit to what we can raise from within that equation to provide a never-ending increase in the DHSS budget.

Mr President, I have said this many times in the past, the DHSS, or Health Service in particular, given their head, could spend our entire Government budget. There will always be more demands and more demands and I am not criticising the demands in any way at all. I think that it is quite right that our people should look to get the very best service, but the Health Service, not just in the Isle of Man, but in the United Kingdom, in the Channel Islands, in particular, are all going through the same crisis at the moment.

The published expectation, matched by the improvements in technology and medical treatments are growing in such a way that the ability of any State at the moment to fund health to the level that the public expect is becoming increasingly diffi cult. Hard decisions are going to have to be made in the time ahead to enable us to protect those frontline services and ensure that the public get the best level of service we can provide for them.

To do that, Mr President, demands that we all look at unnecessary expenditure, at unnecessary layers of management and less peripheral activities within the various Departments to ensure that all our resources are focused on the frontline service that we all want to deliver to our people.

Mr Cannan, the Hon. Member for Michael, has stated that the health of our citizens is an absolute priority and has staked that claim out for himself. Mr President, every one of us in this Hon. Chamber feels exactly the same. (A Member: Hear, hear.) There is no difference of opinion on this. It is outrageous that it should be used – this scaremongering and opportunistic shroud-waving at this time is not helpful at all to try and fi nd a solution to the diffi culties that are being faced.

The amendment, Mr President, that the Hon. Member has moved today that the extra £1½ million be provided is irrelevant, frankly. It does not matter whether it goes through or not. It is a declaratory resolution, it is meaningless in the sense that, if ultimately the DHSS is still overspent at the end of the year, we will have no choice but to balance the books. But what we are asking the DHSS to do in return for the fi rst £6½ million is to make an attempt to save the £1½ million to ease the pressure on them next year and the year after.

So, as I say, Mr President, the amendment is really quite irrelevant one way or the other and is not helpful to the position that we are in at the moment.

If I can go on to one or two other points, Mr President, that

have been raised. Mr Gill, the Hon. Member for Rushen has raised a couple of points and I think I have answered the point about it being conditional on the £1½ million elsewhere. He has made reference to the revenue fi gures which were issued by Treasury in the autumn, which showed no overspend, and at that time when those fi gures were fi rst issued – and it is, perhaps, not the most appropriate way of issuing those fi gures – although there were indications that, perhaps, some Departments might overspend, there was also a possibility for those Departments to actually retrieve the situation before the end of the year. That is why the wording appears in the way that it does and that was explained very clearly to the Hon. Member at the time. There were indications that there were going to be some over expenditure, but, as I say, it could have been clawed back by this time and, therefore, the overspend would not have been needed to be dealt with.

The other point, Mr President, which a couple of Members have mentioned is the National Insurance contribution: that we should attempt to raise extra funding through that. That has been a debate which has gone on for a number of years. We agreed to increase it for the employers and, as has rightly been said, we have raised, I think, £5 million or thereabouts for that.

The debate then has gone on whether it should go onto the employees. I think one of the concerns which has been expressed about putting it onto employees is that that, in turn, may trigger a response in terms of demands for higher wages to compensate for it. The concern that then develops from that is that the cost base of doing business on the Isle of Man ultimately is starting to get forced up and there is a wider concern, then, about the impact on jobs and whether, in fact, as you look through the economic cycle, that will damage the economy still further.

That has been one of the main concerns, but I certainly know that the Council of Ministers are looking, or will look, at this. It is something which comes up annually, anyway, as to whether, in fact, this fi gure will be changed. The Budget ordinarily is not the time when this issue is considered. I think there is a time issue on this; I think it has to be considered by September or October in any one year, so that it can be introduced by about, I think it is March time, in any one year. So I think there is actually a time cycle when this has to be considered. The Budget usually is not the place where this is considered, but I am sure it is an issue which will be considered in the not too distant future, Mr President.

The President: I am sure it could be considered.

Mr Bell: Mr President, I do not want to get into all the details about the level of services provided. I just want to try and put a fi nancial perspective on where we are today.

I really do believe we need to just calm down a bit and be rational about the debate that is going on today. There are no demands for cuts in services, certainly not in frontline services. The public have no reason to be fearful of what is being debated today. We are actually providing £6½ million more for the Health Service, which has not been budgeted for and I am sure that will go through. Indeed, ultimately, if the DHSS are unable to fi nd the whole of the £1½ million, I am sure Tynwald will look favourably on whatever the balance is.

I would urge Hon. Members, please let us just focus on the issues that have been presented to us. The Island is still in a very positive state of economic growth: overall, the revenues



are still quite buoyant, but there has to be a limit as to how much we can spend at any one time for one Department, without it impacting on other Departments as well.

Mr President, I fully support the resolution, as put forward by the Minister. As I say, the amendment, as far as I am concerned, is totally irrelevant one way or the other. It is purely a declaratory resolution and Treasury and the Council of Ministers will look at the fi nal outcome of DHSS spending in the normal way at the end of the year. The only reason that this resolution has come forward now, instead of the end of the year, which would normally have been the case, is that we already know that the DHSS has overspent by £6½ million at this point. Therefore it is to keep the books balanced at this juncture that it is brought forward earlier than, perhaps, it might otherwise be.

But the DHSS outcome – as the outcomes of all Departments – will be considered at the end of the fi nancial year and any balancing exercise will be carried out at that point.


Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Eaghtyrane.I have been on the Department of Health and Social

Security for four years now and, during that time, I have seen costs rise, both in Health Services and in Social Services and I have also seen budgets rise over that particular time. I think it is safe to say that, during the whole of that time, there has been a diffi culty in keeping within the budget.

This year, the Department is overspent, in some region by over £8 million, but I think we should welcome the £6.5 million that is on the Order Paper today. I think we should rejoice that we are able to provide £6.5 million to our Health Services. I think we should say that this is wonderful.

We have had, over the last year, the situation of the Manx Electricity Authority and why? Because there have not been proper controls in place. All the Treasury and the Council of Ministers are asking the Department to do, is to look at whether you have controls, whether you have proper initiatives in place and whether you can make this little bit of saving to facilitate the £6.5 million going to the Department.

I think we should say, yes, with the experience that we have had in the past with other areas of overspend and out of control, and all, we should be prepared to look at where we can make some savings, and where we can examine what our spending is.

Therefore, I think it is right, as long as it does not hit the front-line provision, that we do look at everything we do. We examine what we do and this is what I have tried to do in the Social Services, but I have to say, it is not easy in Social Services when we are trying to make changes to make ourselves more effi cient and then we get three children who come into care – who have to be taken into care. So, we have to deal with that situation.

It is not as simple – and I am sorry that the Member for Douglas North is not here now – but it is not as simple as he describes it here in very derogatory terms. But I think what Members could have said today is that, yes, is there some way in which the Department can put in any more controls, so that we can afford the services that we want? – such as developing breast screening, digital hearing, opening up more ESMI units, a drug and rehabilitation unit that we decided to go ahead with, but we can only use part of it. That is desperately needed for the addiction that is out in our community and the distress and

the discomfort and the breakdown of families that is going on because of that.

These are all sorts of areas that I want to see developed. It has already been mentioned by the Chief Minister and by the Minister for the Treasury about the child care inquiries and how that will impinge on us. Medical centres that people are wanting in various areas – they also come at a cost. What we should be doing, we should be looking to see if we can make savings in one place, so that we can provide them there but keeping within budget, knowing that we have had to make cuts in this last year or so for a number of reasons and not just because of the Manx Electricity Authority.

I am concerned – and I have to express my concern, even though the other Member is not here – that Mr Houghton, the Member for Douglas North, takes every opportunity to attack Social Services. He is also the Chair of the Civil Service Commission. I fi nd his remarks and the position that he holds to be totally out of keeping and I think it is something that the Council of Ministers should look at.

I just wonder where is his expertise to say that Social Services is failing? If he has got this expertise, why is he not sharing it with everybody – this expertise he has got in regard to how Social Services work? I just fi nd it most worrying that a person who holds this position within Government – and it is a Government position that he holds – that he should make these bigoted remarks about a particular Department that fi nds it very diffi cult to deal with extremely vulnerable people with many, many different situations which they have to deal with in their very vulnerable lives.

It is not just a simple issue of black and white. It is a very grey area, where people have to deal with most diffi cult situations in their lives. They have got nobody else to turn to – nobody else except Social Services and we have to deal with it all. It is not an area that people want to get involved with. You ask any family whether they would want to get involved with Social Services and they would say, no, they did not. Any family with elderly relatives – do you want to get involved with Social Services? No, they do not want it. They do not want home care, or they do not want any of these services, but they get to a situation where they cannot live without our services.

It is a service that we offer that nobody wants, but people need and I think that we have got to try to accept that this is a very diffi cult area, dealing with very diffi cult issues. But it is also a service that, when people are desperate, they want – not that they want it at all, but just because they are very, very desperate. And to criticise the people who work within this area, I think is totally and absolutely deplorable.


Mrs Craine: Thank you, Mr President.I would, fi rst of all, like to take up the comments of the

Treasury Minister. I think we need to make it quite clear that we have been in negotiation with Treasury – that is DHSS and the Council of Ministers – over these cutbacks for some considerable time. The proposals before you today have been the result of those ongoing negotiations.

The result is that you have before you a request for a supplementary vote for £6½ million. We have undertaken – and I would confi rm this for the benefi t of the Member for Rushen, Mr Gill – that the support is conditional on us fi nding £1½ million. We have undertaken to do that. There is not an



issue there. In fact, in some areas, we have already begun to make some of those cuts and that is for this year, up to 31st March. That is a process that is underway.

With regard to the amendment – whilst I thank the Hon. Member for Michael for his support – it actually does not mean an awful lot, as has been said, because if we fi nd ourselves unable to meet the £1½ million – which we have committed to fi nd – then it would be necessary for us to come back to this Court for a supplementary vote, as has been said – and that is what we would do. There is no dispute about the funding and we are here to try and fi nd a way out of a sorry situation because, whether we accept it or whether we like it or not, what we have is, in Health Services, a demand-led service and peopleʼs expectations are great.

I would say that, collectively, we are responsible for those expectations being allowed, perhaps, to be too great. There is no quick fi x to try and put this budget defi cit right. We realise in Health Services, and in DHSS as a whole, that this is an ongoing situation and we are keen not to hit into front-line services. We have undertaken, in the short term, that we are not going to do that, but we have to fi nd a way through.

I would have to say that I think the diffi culty we have within this Court is that, to a degree, we are all experts. We are all experts because we have all had some run-in at some point with the DHSS – through Social Security, through Health or Social Services – one way or another, they have touched our lives, just as much as every other person in the community. So, we all believe that we know best where cuts can be made. We all have our own priorities. As the Minister has said, he is no exception and neither am I.

What I would like to point out there on that point is that we are endeavouring to provide a robust approach to those services that can be provided in the future. We can only adopt that robust approach with the political will of this Court. I give, for example – and I am sorry that he is not here – but Mr Earnshaw, the Member for Onchan, is making a very strong case for breast screening. There is not one person in this Court who would dispute (Mr Cretney and Mr Cannan: Hear, hear.) that we need, or would certainly benefi t from having the breast-screening recall service. But let us not overlook that that service is already in existence. (Mrs Hannan: Hear, hear.) We can take advantage of having breast screening. It is there.

Mrs Crowe: Put a note in your diary.

Mrs Craine: We can undertake, by our own selves, to go along and avail ourselves of that service. It should be getting used now, fully, and I do not believe that it is. However, we are not delivering, or being asked for, a bowel cancer screening service – an area which claims a greater numbers of victims than breast cancer – and I would question why? Because it is not popularly sexy at the moment. But this is where these issues get clouded, because we have – yes, on the one hand, an issue that we are not disputing would be desirable – but we, actually, have another problem here that, really, needs greater precedence.

What I am saying is that you have to allow the Department to set the professional priorities. We have, on our Agenda, fl uoridation of water, fruit in schools, respite care – the list is endless. My own bee in my bonnet is that of sexual health. We have had to put the sexual health strategy on the back burner. I am very concerned by that, because there is chlamydia in the Isle of Man of epidemic proportions. (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) The result of that creates a higher

incidence of infertility.In turn, we then have to pay highly for people to go

away for IVF treatment. Yes, I am sorry, that is my personal concern. I am taking it to the extreme, if you like, but it is not so very far from the truth. It is seriously worrying and we should be worried, but this, like other services, are things that we are not going to be able to deliver in the meantime.

I would plead with Members that, when we come forward with our suggestions as to how cuts are going to be made, then give them serious thought before we all start applying our own personal agenda. We know that there are areas that will not be popularly pleasing with Members. For example, is it right that we should means test people for child benefi t? A benefi t that is higher than that in receipt in the UK. We have been, perhaps, too generous, and now it is becoming very, very diffi cult to cut back. Should we allow everybody over 60 to have prescriptions free? Is that realistic?

The allowances for those going off-Island for treatment: this, again, is another area of concern to me. There is a payment of £26 a day for people going off-Island for treatment, in support. Now £26 to one person is nothing, £26 to another is bread and butter. Where should we be drawing the line? Should we not be directing the money that we have to those who are in the greatest need?

These are going to be the hard decisions that we are going to ask for your support on.

I would, if I may, just like to touch on an area of Social Services that has been commented on – and I am sorry that he is still not here, Mr Houghton, Member for Douglas North. When he refers to the need for… or the criticisms that he makes of childcare, I fi nd that very worrying, actually, that he should be so critical there, of the provision that is trying to be made now. I think it is a very sad situation we fi nd ourselves in, that we have to make these spot placements for children, but we do. There are numerous reasons for that, but the placements that are given out to children in need come at a great cost. Would it not be nice if we could actually say we do not need these spot placements, not because we have got families who are not in trouble, but because we have got plenty of people out there who will provide a fostering service for us. I am afraid that is not the case.

I do think that there is a great need for professional fosterers to come forward, but, again, we are a victim of our own success, because in our economic, buoyant situation, people are not staying at home and providing those homecare services, they are going out and earning a better wage than they can earn as fosterers. Those are the realities of life. There is a shortage of people to take these caring roles on.

I would also touch on a comment that was made by Mr Singer, if I may, and that was, he regretted – or he was critical of – the advertisement for a person to come to work with children, to play, in hospital. Again, I fi nd it a very sad refl ection on our community that we have to have that kind of provision. I was somewhat shocked this week to fi nd out that, in fact, the bedtime story is a thing of the past these days. It is much easier to have a television in the room and put whatever video happens to be lying around in the slot and off you go.

Mr Anderson: Let us have a story!

Mrs Craine: Let us get back to stories, but I am afraid there is not that connection with family life in an awful lot of cases these days.



We are looking at various cuts here, but that does not mean that everything has to go on hold. I would take issue with Mr Henderson, Member for Douglas North, when he criticised the investment that we committed to this morning for the space industry. I would just say that I believe that there is a need to speculate, if we are hoping to accumulate. I would hope that that is a very successful area, in order that it can bolster the coffers and bring even more back to Health.

Mr Henderson: That is what I said.

Mrs Craine: He also criticised the trip that was made to Dublin before Christmas to look at the Tobacco Bill legislation that is forthcoming.

As a member of the party that went on that trip, I would just like to defend that, inevitably perhaps, but I would defend it, because we were able to meet people face to face, discuss the problems which they had encountered in introducing that legislation, and, when all is said and done, this is one of the most important pieces of social legislation that this Island is going to see in a long time. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I think that it was money well spent.

Mr Downie: Long overdue.

Mrs Craine: I would also just say, whilst referring to Mr Henderson, that I feel he undermines, Mr President, his own credibility and professionalism and the morale of our staff by constantly introducing an ongoing disciplinary matter. (Mrs Hannan and another Member: Hear, hear.) There are procedures in place and they should be observed even by MHKs and adhered to.

Mr Henderson: I have not breached Standing Orders.

Mrs Craine: I would say, Mr President, that it is worth mentioning that, yes, we have had a problem this year with trying to meet our budget, but, as was pointed out in the explanatory memorandum, we have an increase in the number of procedures. The patient throughput has had a major impact on the cost of service provision. The day cases between 2003-04 and 2005-06 will have increased by 75 per cent and outpatients for the same time by 7.5 per cent. That is considerable, and it comes at a cost. If we are to make reductions that are going to increase waiting lists, nobody in this Court is going to be satisfi ed with that.

I would also comment on the drugs bill that has been referred to of £16.3 million. I was taking the predicted fi gure of our population at the present time, which I would estimate has gone now to about 78,000. The fi gure for the costs, or the drugs bill, when that is broken down, is actually £209 per year per person. For a family of fi ve we are not claiming any of that, and whoever needs it is welcome to it, but that, I do not think, is excessive, but we have had to face very great rising costs in drugs.

We also have had to face the fact that we have rates of pay for our staff that have to match those in the UK and, in some cases, more, if we are to be able to attract staff to the Island.

Mr President, we know that there is work to be done – we have got some certain measures underway. What we are asking for is your support and patience in helping us to achieve the necessary cuts that are required.

I seek your support of the main resolution.


Mr Delaney: Thank you, Mr President.My two colleagues from the Department have spoken,

they have spoken well. The Minister has clarifi ed very clearly why this £6½ million is required to run a Department of Government which benefi ts the people of the Isle of Man.

I want to say this. In the 30 years I have knocked on peopleʼs doors or spoken to the Manx people, nobody ever, ever, has said to me that they think they have been overcharged for the Health Service. That is different to the Social Security, but the Health Service, if you look at the fi gures the Minister has spelt out to you, is the main area where we are going to require this money.

This side of the section of Tynwald, Members are going to go out in this year, most of them I suppose, and ask to be supported. I would ask them this, because I am of this opinion, whether the message has got upstairs to the people in power, I do not believe the Manx people as a body will object to a one per cent increase in the Health Service, if that guarantees them the right to have the Health Service they need to keep themselves and their families on their feet.

I will tell you where you can prove this: the people in the Island I know, who pay for private healthcare, are swinging round very quickly, as I always thought they would do, to realise it is better to contribute to your own Health Service than to some profi t-making organisation off the Island, which when you do get sick, when you get older, will tell you that they do not want your business. That is what is happening. That is why we in this Island and the politicians who represent the people should be wary of, in any way, taking down the Health Service structure we have got. That does not mean to say the fi nancial area is allowed to get out of hand.

I always thought it was on every Memberʼs agenda, whichever Department they are in, not to spend public money that they thought was unnecessary. I thought that has been the rule for me and I hope for everybody else in the last 30 years. If you can save money, save it.

There is one area and I know this goes with the other two Members and I was quite astonished, because we are all three different types of politicians, different views, different priorities, different ways of life, but – to the Minister – there has not been one row between us of where the savings we are trying to identify, wherever it came from, should try to be saved.

My contribution to the Minister, someone who I hope has got a bit of experience, was: can we for this year – I will give you this one example – new vehicles, do we need them? Of course, this will not go down very well with the people who sell the vehicles, but I will give you this as an example to other Departments. If you are really getting stuck, and the Treasury Minister across the road, do we need to renew all these vehicles every year? Rules have changed, actually. We all know this from our own personal purchase of vehicles – the rules in vehicles we supply has changed.

It may not be, Minister, benefi cial fi nancially to renew your vehicle every two years. Nobody has ever done an exercise on this. Bad news for the people who supply them, but that is one of the areas that all Departments should be looking at. Some vehicles are getting exchanged, I am sorry to say this, with mileage on that we would be delighted, as individuals, to have on the vehicles we are driving in and out to Tynwald on. But because the yearly turnover has come up, we have to get rid of them.



That is one area that I think everyone should be looking at, as an example of what we should be doing. (A Member: Yes.) When we get down to the main part, the Minister has pointed out where 30 per cent is on pharmaceuticals. (Interjections) Is anyone here – that is why I know this will go through virtually on the nod – going to say to the people from the House of Keys perspective: ̒ Vote for me, but last year we voted out 30 per cent of the pharmaceuticals that you require to run your familyʼs health. ̓It is nonsense.

That is why I know that the Members will vote this through, besides what has been said, because that is the reality of the politics of the Isle of Man. That does not mean to say, as I have already explained, about not saving money, but what does worry me – and it really is a worry – is that if Members have any suggestions, in any Department, of how money can be saved, it is corporate government. We keep using this expression, ʻcorporate governmentʼ, we keep saying it and it gets thrown in every little speech, but we do not practise what the meaning of the term is. If any area is a saving that can be possibly made, it is up to the Member, and the Minister if possible, for the Member to get the message to the Department of are they saving in that area? That is how business works.

I have only been a small business – only a handful of us here who have ever run our own businesses – but that is how it worked. You expected people not to expend money or to waste money, and you would not do it, as the owner of the company, you would not do it and you would not expect your staff to do it. That is corporate government, same way.

I was interested in Mr Loweyʼs remark, which is an old one he has made before, and I am sure those of you who have been around… in relation to taxing the sick. That is exactly what we do, in reality, when we charge people for the Health Service. We charge them a tax to supply them with a Health Service.

We do not tax them when they get sick, we tax them before they get sick, and they do not mind paying it.

I am sure they will not mind paying a bit more, as long as we guarantee them good service. I think that the Health Service and the other parts of the Department try to give that service. I believe that is what we should be saying to the public.

Do not be ashamed of the amount of money. The Minister for the Treasury rightly pointed out the increases, but I am sorry to tell him, if you look at other – including your own, Minister – increases in staff, because of IT and the costs – have a look at the increases there – the percentage increases, if you are going to pay the percentage game.

Mr Bell: Nowhere near yours.

Mr Delaney: Not mine – nowhere near ours, because the Health Service belongs to the whole people, including yourself.

In some areas, this is necessary to get the whole thing working, and I am sure my Minister, the Members of the Department… no Member of Tynwald wants to see a cutback in what we deliver to our people. But if anybody comes to me, or meets me in one of the Members ̓ rooms, and tells me of an area that is not performing and could save money, please tell me. I will not be ashamed to take the advice and take it back to the Minister, because that is what we are here for – not to waste money.

Mr President, as far as the amendment is concerned, it

might only be a situation of its being declaratory – it might only be that. But what that amendment will do is send a message out to the public who have already been misled– not by here, not by the Department – but, rightly, in some cases, the journalistic licence that is supplied.

If you look at the headlines, last week, in the paper of £6½ million worth of cuts, it was not done from here. It was done from out there. That is the frightening part that the public have read, and that is what they have heard.

The message that has got to be countered is that these cuts will not all be there. The only way to do that is to support the declaratory resolution – that we believe that, if it is necessary, we will spend that extra £1½ million, if the cuts are not acceptable and will damage the people of the Isle of Man, in their Health Service and Social Services. I believe it is worth supporting. It will counter the bad message that has been sent out.

Mr President, this was always going to go through. You know it as witness to this, and most of the Members know it. Nobody has, actually, really – except possibly Mr Gill – criticised the workings of any of the Health Services or the Social Security.

But there is one last message, and this really is a message that wants to be put. (Interjections) The situation is that some of these expenditures that have been picked up by the Department – and, probably, other Departments too, by the way – in relation to the Inquiries, as the Minister pointed out, were never budgeted for. And there is another one coming at you for about £90,000, on the second unfortunate incident which occurred recently. This is going to cost us, unbudgeted, £90,000.

It does not seem a lot, when you look at the overall couple of hundred million of the Health Service, but somebody has got to fi nd it – and, unfortunately, that somebody is you, Hon. Members.

I hope you support this. I hope you give it the full enthusiasm that I know some Members would like to have, because, at the end of the day, the Manx people are proud of their Health Service. They use the Health Service. They are committed to the Health Service, and they expect their representatives to give it the support, fi nancially, when it is necessary in their family interest.



Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I have to say that I have found the debate interesting, in certain parts. I thought it was really good to hear the Chief Minister – the Ard-shirveishagh of this country – actually giving a bit of leadership and actually standing up and saying something instead of, generally, auditioning for one of the Hon. Member for South Douglas ̓clients. (Laughter) I think that is what we want to see a bit more often.

I have to say that I think we have seen a lot of the banter, and the situation where we have got one side saying it is black and the other side saying it is white. I think what we really need to recognise, within this debate today, is the fact that these problems have not just arisen overnight.

I feel a bit sorry for the Minister – as a former Member for Health – that the structures which, as far as I am concerned, I can identify from the late 1980s, when we talk about our National Health Service in the Isle of Man, which was the change of policy, as far as management is concerned.



At the end of the day, Eaghtyrane, it is an absurdity that we are here today and, oops, we have just found out that there is a £6½ million overspend, minimum! We have got more management – more layers of management – than we have ever had in the DHSS. I think this is the sort of thing that needs to be addressed, as far as the Department is concerned, because when the Treasury Minister made his points – and one or two of his points were quite interesting – I think it was 48 per cent that wage costs have gone up – well, Health Service workers ̓wages have not gone up by 48 per cent.

It would be interesting, if this Health Commission actually comes back with something... If it has been set up, actually, to do a job and not to paper over the cracks of trying to justify the present system of government we have, which is a very nice one-party state by patronage, we might actually get the sort of audit that we need into Government, by this parliamentary assembly, in order to do it.

I have some sympathy with the Minister, but I just hope that he will climb down off the fence. He is either in the Government or he is in the opposition, and I would be interested to hear his position, as far as the amendment is concerned, because I feel that is something that we all need to know.

I am not particularly bothered about voting for the amendment, but I have to say I do not want to be told that we have to bring in all sorts of stringent cuts of another £1½ million, because we did not support it. I was very tempted, but as I can be quite nice to you, Mr President, I did not move an amendment to give the people the opportunity to talk, again.

But to say that any other issues as far as the fi nancing of this Department would come back to this Hon. Court, but I see that the Ard-shirveishagh, the Chief Minister, is taking leadership and is nodding and saying that he would come back to this Department, if there is another issue as far as cutbacks are concerned.

In my opinion, this Hon. Court really needs to address a couple of issues – a couple of issues when we talk about the Health Services. We can all be proud, and none of us want to see cutbacks. None of us want to see the curtailing of services to our people.

But when we look at simple little principles of the money we spend in the DHSS per head of population, I very much doubt – especially when we work out the advantages we have with the reciprocal health agreement – there would be few countries, apart from Cuba and one or two others, who more than likely put in more per head of population into their health services. And that is something not to be ashamed of. That is something to be proud of – that every Member in this Hon. Court can be proud of.

Where we cannot be proud is when we allow a situation where that bonus is not maximised and used for the benefi t of our people. Too often, it is left to too many little empires, and not because we in this Hon. Court will not take on the big boys.

This is what I fear, Eaghtyrane, when I hear the Member of Council, Mr Singer, talk about how we missed the opportunity of putting the 1 per cent on the employers ̓side on the national insurance contributions. (Interjections) Whatever – I stand corrected.

What concerns me, Eaghtyrane, is there is a much easier way to that, which affects every Member of this Hon. Court. Do away with the upper limit. Give them no extra pension. Hit the fat cats – not the poor little people who have to pay

for these things.That is what concerns me, when we talk about cuts and

when we talk about what needs to be done about the Health Services. That problem and that principle goes through this Hon. Court far too much. We see it far too often.

When we talk about justifi cation, it is easier to kick at the bottom end of the power game, in the structure of government control, than at the top. Does the Chief Executive need two PAs or a PA on his own and three assistants, or does the cleaner at the bottom need another part-time assistant?

It is too easy to look at the bottom, and I think that is one of the problems that we have, at the present time, and one of the problems that we have with the present structure of government that we do need to address. That is one of the reasons why I am not the Member for Health, at the present time, in this administration, like the last administration.

As I told the parliamentary Labour Party, the only place I would go after fi ve years, the last time, is to Forestry, because the Minister can overrule us and do what they like, as far as the trees are concerned, because I would not lose any sleep over it. (Mrs Hannan: Oh!) (Interjection by Mr Downie)

What we need is a situation where we have the proper structure and proper delegated function, as far as Departments are concerned. What I do hope that comes out of the Health Service Commission is that they look at that issue of the bottom line of how much goes in.

How much goes into services? How much goes into the fat that is there, but it is there at the top? The things that we are too frightened to attack; the things where we see now, the way the MEA was allowed to do what it liked and, virtually, anybody was silenced who was prepared to stand up.

I would like to say that there are some points that I fi nd rather disappointing. I was disappointed with the Member for Peel, with her talk about the situation. There she is, with her paint brush dripping in black paint, telling us that she is painting something white, when it is plainly obvious that it is not. She might have points about the Hon. Member for North Douglas, but he has points, too, about Social Services and, sometimes, I might think that the gravitational pull of the moon has an effect on him. (Laughter)

A Member: Heʼs right.

Mr Karran: But, at the end of the day, fi rstly, he has a right to say what he believes in this Hon. Court and I will defend that right. Unfortunately, our track record is not good, to the Hon. Member for Peel, especially, (Interjection by Mr Houghton) when I talked to somebody about two or three months ago – loved the Isle of Man, came to the Isle of Man, goggled at the resources that there were in Social Services, and thought the service was absolutely wonderful, but said that she could not stand it any more. ʻI cannot stand it any more, because there is no management there of any worth, as far as the issues are concerned ̓– and the individual has, more than likely, gone now.

The problem we have there and what highlights that was the issue I was talking to somebody in the DHSS the other day. We shoot the messenger, far too often, and do not listen to the message that is often given – like the message that was given to me by this particular health professional the other day. I said, ʻWell, letʼs sit down and letʼs have a chat about it. ̓ʻOoh, I couldnʼt do that.ʼ

Mr Houghton: Yes – heʼd be shot.



Mr Karran: ̒ Iʼll lose my permanent job. ̓(Mr Houghton: Yes.)

I think it is important, Eaghtyrane, that people realise (Interjection by Mrs Hannan) that the problem we have got is not something that has just arrived. It is not just about throwing money at the thing. It is about the management structure – and that came about in the late 1980s, when we destroyed all lay input into the situation of the DHSS.

So, there is no lay input. There is no pride in the Health Services situation, because it is all bureaucratically run, by management jobs ̓worth.

And, at the end of the day, in this Hon. Court, I can say what I like. I might be the Chief Rabbi, as far as Passovers for ministerial appointment, (Laughter) but, at the end of the day, you cannot sack me, only my constituents can! (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.)

When you work in the DHSS, and you work with a perverse system of the way the management is and when you bring in half-thought out ideas from the United Kingdom, before they have even... That is why we are in the mess we are today, because there is no traa dy liooar policy – picking the best from the United Kingdom, instead of getting us by the scruff of the neck and by the seat of our pants –

Mrs Hannan: What policy are you talking about?

Mr Karran: – and throwing us in that direction. That is the problem today.

When the Hon. Member for Peel goes on the attack to the Hon. Member for North Douglas, I am not saying he is always right. I cringe, sometimes, when the Hon. Member puts some of his stuff, but, at the end of the day, if we actually listened a bit more often, and thought about the real core issue… and the core issue today in this debate is not the lack of resources. It is the way we spend the money, and that is the one thing that needs to be addressed. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.)

I hope that we have seen in the debate today, with the Ard-shirveishagh, that we will see more leadership, as far as that issue is concerned. We will see a situation where people will make those decisions, in their positions. There is no use the Minister having the Member for Health there, the Hon. Member for Ramsey, making decisions. ʻI would have an administration committee, so it lets the people have more inputʼ, and then saying, ʻOh, you are only there as a fi gureheadʼ, and when you make any decisions the civil servants do not like, they just run off to the Minister and they change them.

I have seen that not just in the DHSS, I have seen it in the DoT, from when it was the DHPP –

The President: Hon. Member, just come back a little closer to the motion, please.

Several Members: Yes.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, what I believe today is, and I have got the assurance now, via the Ard-shirveishaghʼs nodding, that the situation is, if any cutbacks are going to be in this Department, for the other £1½ million, they will be debated in this Hon. Court. If I have that sort of assurance, I have no problem with the amendment.

I hope that this Health Service Commission does look at the real issues, and the real issues have to be how we manage this Service. I hope that the Minister will take on board my

comments, because they are meant in the best positive will, like everybody else in this Hon. Court, instead of the situation where we have too many sacred cows that we are not prepared to address.

Two Members: Vote.


Mr Houghton: Hear, hear. Five-minute time limit.

The President: Oh, sorry. Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Rimington. Yes, you did, sir, indicate later.

Mr Corkill: He has been trying for ages!

Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr President. I will try and be brief. Obviously, as elected politicians, we

have two responsibilities and I think, unfortunately, we focus on the fi rst responsibility, to the detriment of the second.

The fi rst responsibility is we are here to provide services for the people who we represent, and to give them good services, etc, whether that is in health, education or, indeed, the roads that they travel on, or whatever it might be.

The second responsibility I think we have – which we tend to overlook, because we are, by defi nition, short-termists, because we are always looking at the next election and our own re-election and our current popularity stakes – is to our children and our children s̓ children, (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) because we are only stewards.

We are only stewards of the society we live in, at any one point in time, and we should always be thinking of the future and of the long term. That creates diffi culties, when we are faced with overwhelming demands for what are called ʻdemand-led servicesʼ, i.e. ʻspend our money on us nowʼ, which is essentially where we are at with this Health Services issue.

So, we have to manage those expectations about what we can usefully spend on ourselves now, and what we should also be spending on our infrastructure for the future and there are issues there. We have heard in recent times about the loss of the fresh meat derogation, and that will mean, if we want, in the long term, to have an agricultural industry and a landscape that we are proud of, we may need to put some form of resources into that area, (A Member: Hear, hear.) and they will have to compete with the Health Service and every other service.

So, there are diffi cult issues of fi nancing, and the Hon. Member of the Council, Mrs Christian, certainly touched on those, that we need to look very carefully at our balance of fi nancing and look at those in more of a pro-active and long-term way. She mentioned, quite rightly – and this directly affects the motion, Mr President – that social services in the United Kingdom are a service provided by the local authorities and, predominantly, funded by the local authorities through council tax, or what was then rates, or whatever local form of taxation is there. We provide that through central Government.

Now, the last revenue account, I think, for Social Services was £46 million, or thereabouts. Even if Government paid £16 million of that and we said, right, well, £30 million of that – if we are going to operate in the same way as elsewhere, because that is where we compare – should come from local authorities or through the local taxation system.



I could just give the economics of that. We currently raise about £15 million through our combined rates from incomes, domestic and business, so we would have to treble the amount of rates that we recover from the people – which puts waste charges into insignifi cance! (Laughter)

But these are serious issues of funding, because £30 million is the sort of fi gure that we are looking at, to make a serious impact on our front-line services, the majority of which would fall to DHSS, to Education, but there are other areas which are needed, such as the Promenade from the DoT, or Agriculture, or whatever it might be, and £30 million is a big hit of money to put on the people. That represents, in terms of income tax, 5p across the board, 15 per cent and 23 per cent. So, these are big sums of money.

So, we have to – and the Hon. Member for the Department, Mrs Craine, did, I think, allude to this – manage expectations, because, going forward, we will not be able, under the current structures, to provide everything to everybody all the time.

From the inception of the National Health Service, which was absolutely fantastic – we were going to provide health care for everybody – it was going to be free, to now, that system of health care has expanded exponentially, and so have the requests and demands on that health care. So, we are heading, whether we like it or not, in the Isle of Man – it is in the Isle of Man, it is in the UK, it is elsewhere – towards a crisis, because taxation will not support that, unless we completely and radically change our taxation system, beyond what we currently think is imaginable.

So, the sooner we get that message through, that expectations have to be restricted to some degree, then we are not going to get anywhere.

The Hon. Member mentioned the issue of the off-Island expenditure by the Health Service of £25 or £26 a day, to support people going across for necessary treatment.

Now, it is an issue that I was, personally, involved in, of an individual who really needed that and more, because they could not genuinely manage on that, and they had genuine economic hardship. I suggested to one of the particular organisations that was campaigning for more, I said, ̒ Look, would you support the principle that that person who really needs it should get more, but those who do not need it and who are quite willing to pay do not get itʼ? I never got a reply. But we have to start replying to those issues, diffi cult though they might be.

The Hon. Member quite rightly pointed out this issue, and the Chief Minister alluded to it as well, about services, that once you have got service in, that is it, you will never get it out again. But that is not what good management of resources is about. (Mr Corkill: Hear, hear.)

If you have a new service coming forward, whatever it might be, which is going to give you a health benefi t, then you need to quantify that health benefi t, and then you need to look at what you are providing and balance that, and if necessary say, ʻLook, this new service – we have only got so much money – is going to improve the health of our population. We are going to put this in and we are going to take that outʼ.

But that is not something that can ever be done on the fl oor of this Court, because no politician wants to identify themselves with a reduction in anything, because that is always unpopular. We always like to identify ourselves with adding to things, which we tend to do ad nauseam.

I have made this point, and I made this point the fi rst year after I was elected, that Tynwald Court is not the place

for determining medical priorities. We should never seek to do that, and you have to leave that to professionals. Yes, Tynwald Court should be direction, money, policy, strategy, whatever; but in determining what service should come in, it should keep well out of it, because it generally just makes a mess, and does not provide, necessarily, the best health benefi t to the population.

So, going forward, yes, we all support the need for £6½ million. The £1½ million, I have to say, is a message. It is a message, unfortunately, to the DHSS, and it is not to the Minister or the Chief Executive, necessarily; it is one that has got to fl ow down through the ranks, at all ranks, to say that there is not a tap there that is always open, that everybody at every level has to see what little things they can do to reduce their cost base. A thousand and one little things will go a lot longer, and a lot more to saving money, than a big cut.

I will repeat, just in conclusion, Mr President, one which I have mentioned in this Hon. Court before, when we had an energy debate, and it is one I will keep on mentioning at periodic intervals until somebody sits up and takes notice, is I enjoy walking around in the evening and seeing the starlight, but when you walk past the back of the doctors ̓surgery in the south of the Island, all you can see is a huge number of street lights lighting up the lawn at the back of the doctors ̓surgery.

In terms of saving energy, which is one of the issues that you have been hit with extra costs, there are areas where small amounts, certainly, can be saved.


The President: Now, I think, the Minister can reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I do not think it would be appropriate to respond to every

point made –

Several Members: Hear, hear.

A Member: Just say thank you. (Interjections and laughter)

The Minister: – but I would wish to thank everyone for their contribution who has spoken.

I would like to thank the last two speakers for the wider debate that has gone beyond the immediate issue of the supplementary vote, which is the fi nancial resolution, because that wider debate does, at some point, need to take place. My hon. colleague, Mr Rimington, is well known for his philosophical discourses to us, but I think, on this occasion, he was right to fl ag up some of these wider issues, whether it be about our duty to future generations, whether it be about the ability of public taxation to continue to fi nance health care, in the way it has up to now, the questions of sustainability and the management of expectations on the part of the public – very, very, important issues.

I take on board the advice of the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, also, where he said the problem, in his view, was not lack of resources, but the way we spend the money. Now, as far as that goes, he is correct. The art of management, of course, and political priority setting is, in fact, how you allocate the resources, how you spend the money, and, to that extent, it is not lack of resources, because, as I said, you cannot spend money you do not have.

But the trick is, the fi rst point, managing the expectations



of the public and striking the right balance between their right to the health care and other social services to which they are entitled – I am not saying to which they believe they are entitled, but to which they are entitled – and our ability to make that possible.

Now, I thank my Department colleagues, the Hon. Member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, Mr Delaney, Member for Douglas West, and Mrs Craine who, with me, we live day in, day out with the problems of setting the course, steering what is a unique organisation, whichever way you look at it – the largest employer in the Isle of Man, a service provided to the public that, in any jurisdiction you care to look at, is pretty well unique, carrying out the roles of the departments of state, Ministry of Health, with the roles of what would, in other places, be local authority social service departments, with the role of a social security provider, with the role of a primary care trust, looking after GPs and dentists, the role of a hospital trust, all requiring skills and the application of resources, properly, to such diverse areas. It is not an easy job.

I thank Mrs Craine for her very strong summing up, and the way she answered a number of points made by Hon. Members that I would have otherwise made, and I thank her for that, and will not make those points.

I think it is very clear from the debate that every Member of this Court supports strong public services, in the fi eld of health and social services – there is no doubt about that, I do not doubt that for one minute – and wants to continue to fi nance a strong health service that is credible with the public and giving the public the services that they want, and is minded to approve the moneys to make that necessary. The message I am also, clearly, getting is: let that expenditure be done wisely and cost-effectively.

But, at the end of the day, we are here, our purpose in life is to run the Isle of Man, and to make possible the generation of the resources by the private sector of the Isle of Man, to provide the public services that the public actually want.

I think what Members, also, want to do is to reassure the public that attention, the highest priority, is being given to the continuation of those services, taking on board the wider issues that other Members have referred to.

Now, I very much, naturally, listen to the words of the Chief Minister and the Treasury Minister, and I take very strong note of these – of course I do. I had been picking up, from some quarters, that support for the amendment made by the Hon. Member for Michael was equivalent to taking off the pressure on the DHSS, to actually deliver on its condition to contain its spending by £1½ million as a condition of getting £6½ million approved today.

But that is an academic argument, inasmuch as the Chief Minister has made perfectly plain that, for whatever reason, justifi able or not – and if it is not justifi able, I will have to be on my feet explaining this – after April, at the end of the fi nancial year, I will have to come back here on behalf of the Department, anyway, to seek supplementary funding.

So, to that extent, the amendment is irrelevant, as the Treasury Minister has said, and meaningless, in those terms of the word. But what it is, also, Mr President, is a letter of comfort – not to me, not to let the Minister off the hook or to let the Department off the hook, but it is, actually, a message to the public that, in imposing fi nancial discipline on ourselves, as a Department, to meet the conditions of the funding, we will not hesitate to come back, if necessary, for further funding, if the public – this is the point – would

otherwise be hit in a way we would determine was otherwise unacceptable, in terms of whether it be waiting lists or a loss of care facilities or whatever.

Now, I repeat, the commitment I have given that, as a Department, we will strive to deliver the £1½ million reductions in our current spending, with minimum impact on the public who consume the front-line services.

Therefore, as a first priority, we will be looking to internal sources, which I have indicated and I have spelled out, the non-front-line service cost reductions in health services and in social services, such things as closure of furniture accounts, certain training events, non-replacement of vehicles, cancellation of various minor capital schemes, and so on, with all the attendant consequences that they will have.

But I have, equally, made it clear that we cannot avoid looking at front-line services and, inevitably, we have to look at front-line services – health services and social services – to make further reductions, but what I have said is that the Department will strive to minimise the impact on the public, from looking at those areas, which is why – I just reiterate – we will look at the way we arrange spot placements, the way we look at staffi ng of the Childrenʼs Resource Unit, the carer strategy, where we give funding for fl exible support to carers.

Now, those three elements alone come to some £350,000. The non-front-line service elements come to some £500,000. That leaves some £700,000 to be achieved through the health services, which is why I went on in considerable detail about how that would be achieved, with the majority of that, by looking at agency, bank staff and overtime, and to do so in such a way as to minimise adverse impact on the public, by more effi cient disposition of ward services and use of beds.

I will not repeat myself in how we intend to do that, but if, in doing so, the consequence of reducing beds and operating wards more effi ciently turns out to be an impact on theatre sessions, whereby elective procedures are affected, numbers of operations are affected, waiting lists go up and we cannot do the waiting list initiatives, to the extent that the public are starting to suffer, then, yes, we will have to come back.

So, I would say that what this amendment is saying is: the pressure is not off you, but be aware, and let the public be aware, that if you have to come back, do not hesitate to come back, if you are coming to ask for money to preserve front-line services that would otherwise adversely affect the public. That is the message I get, Mr President.

I thank Hon. Members for their very clear indications of support to the Department and to the services we are striving to produce. It has been a long debate. I think it has been a useful debate, and I thank Members for their patience.

The President: Hon. Members, the motion that I put to the Court is printed at 10 on your Order Paper. Now, to that, Hon. Members, you have had circulated, and it is in your hands, the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan.

I will put to you, Hon. Members, fi rst, the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Michael. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:


DHSS supplementary vote – Debate continued – Motion carriedIsland-wide maximum speed limit – Questions on Transport Minister’s Statement

In the Keys – Ayes 6, Noes 16

FOR AGAINST Mr Cannan Mr Anderson Mr Rodan Mr Teare Mr Houghton Mr Quayle Mr Henderson Mr Rimington Mr Duggan Mr Gill Mr Delaney Mr Gawne Mr Cretney Mr Braidwood Mrs Hannan Mr Bell Mrs Craine Mr Karran Mr Corkill Mr Earnshaw Capt. Douglas The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, the amendment fails to carry, in the House of Keys, with 6 votes for and 16 votes against.

In the Council – Ayes 1, Noes 8In the Council – Ayes 1, Noes 8In the Council

FOR AGAINST Mr Singer The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Waft Mr Butt Mrs Christian Mr Gelling Mrs Crowe Mr Downie

The President: With 1 vote for, 8 against in the Council, Hon. Members, the amendment, therefore, fails to carry.

I put to you now, Hon. Members, the motion printed on the Order Paper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 22, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Cannan Mr Teare Mr Rodan Mr Quayle Mr Rimington Mr Gill Mr Gawne Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Cretney Mr Duggan Mr Braidwood Mr Delaney Mrs Hannan Mr Bell Mrs Craine Mr Karran Mr Corkill Mr Earnshaw Capt. Douglas The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries, in the House of Keys, with 22 votes for, no votes against.

In the Council – Ayes 9, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST The Lord Bishop None Mr Lowey Mr Waft Mr Singer Mr Butt Mrs Christian Mr Gelling Mrs Crowe Mr Downie

The President: With 9 votes for, none against in the Council, Hon. Members, unanimity surrounds and, therefore, the motion carries, Hon. Members.

Island-wide maximum speed limitQuestions on Transport Ministerʼs Statement

The President: Now, as indicated earlier, Hon. Members, we had a statement, which was lengthy and contained considerable detail, made earlier by the Minister of Transport. Hon. Members, I would propose at this stage to revert to that.

You have had it circulated to you and if there are questions, which any Member would now wish to put to the Minister of Transport, the opportunity is yours.

Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, could I just ask the Shirveishagh: because of the fact that we are now talking of bringing in a maximum speed limit, will that mean that we will rescind the reciprocal agreement, as far as driving licences are concerned, with the United Kingdom, as it was done as a political sop, to show we are doing something?

If you are now going to do the national speed limit, are we going to have that nonsense rescinded, which it should be, as it is a different country?

A Member: Nonsense.



Mr President, can I fi rst apologise for not circulating the Statement. I generally do put copies of my statements out. It was an oversight, which I take responsibility for, but I was under the impression that I was following on from Mr Shimmin in October 2004, and felt it was not necessary to circulate, sir. So, I do apologise.

The reciprocal agreement, Mr President, on driving licence bans would still be in force, sir, even if there was a speed limit brought in, in the Isle of Man.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Earnshaw.

Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. The issue, it would seem for many, is enforcement, and

I have got a couple of questions for the Minister.Will the Minister confi rm that an overall Island speed

limit is already in existence, this being 50 miles an hour for light commercial vehicles and 40 miles an hour for heavy


Island-wide maximum speed limit – Questions on Transport Minister’s Statement

goods vehicles and buses, and that all such vehicles, by law, should display decals to this effect, which not all of them do?

Would he agree many such vehicles regularly and signifi cantly exceed these speeds, and would he indicate the level of enforcement that takes place in areas with no speed limit for other types of vehicle?

And, whilst I am on my feet, Eaghtyrane, in view of the speeds that are being attained in certain parts of the Island, which he outlined this morning, and which many residents would be quite shocked to hear, is there a case for dangerous driving prosecutions to be brought, (Several Members: Hear, hear.) in those instances?

The Speaker: It already exists.


The Minister: Thank you, Mr President.Mr President, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr

Earnshaw, is quite correct in that vans should have stickers saying, ʻ50 miles an hour ̓–

Mr Downie: Including all Departmentsʼ.

The Minister: – and such as heavy goods vehicles should not exceed certain speeds, which he has mentioned.

Also, we can say that people who have R-plates on cars should not exceed 50 miles an hour, and that includes a person who may have had his test for 20-odd years. If he gets in a car with an R-plate on, he is not supposed to exceed 50 miles an hour.

It comes down to enforcement. Enforcement, at the present time, is through the Isle of Man Constabulary. What we are saying is that, to assist them, cameras would be brought in – mobile speed cameras – to assist the Police in their enforcement –

Mr Earnshaw: What is happening now?

The Minister: I know, ourselves, with dangerous driving, because if a person is driving at too excessive a speed, and is seen by the Police, so that if he is overtaking, as well, in dangerous places, he can be prosecuted for dangerous driving, but that, again, depends on the Constabulary, sir.

The President: Mr Delaney, Hon. Member for Douglas West.

Mr Delaney: Thank you, Mr President. I may need an apology to the Minister, but I thought it

necessary to try and bring to his attention that Members need a copy his Statement, and I was interested in the part of his Statement, where he talks about the speed cameras.

All of us are drivers, I believe – I do not think there are any non-drivers here – and we have, per population, more vehicles, I think, than probably Miami. But the fact of it is – those who fi nd it necessary to walk anywhere, as the Minister, will know, because I know he has walked that area many times – just an example, Peel Road in Douglas: if you go down there at half past seven in the morning, as I tried to do, or at 8 oʼclock, you will fi nd people are speeding there, whether they have vans, which already have a speed limit, and there is a speed limit on the road, and yet nothing is

done. I cannot think of the last time somebody got a speeding ticket on Peel Road.

Will the Minister not consider, instead of having policemen or mobile speed cameras that the public can see, not using what they are using on the motorway, which seems more effective, where the police car has a speed trap inside it, and no identifi cation? It can get the same results, and more of them, by having that unidentifi ed police car, rather than having a police constable with a camera, or a camera up there, that the public can see – the fi rst two people go through, they start fl ashing their lights and everyone slows down and, therefore, the camera becomes useless.

Surely, as part of his Statement here is that the use of a speed camera will allow a greater number of problem areas to be targeted. We can already do that. I know they are going to get a new camera, which I am delighted about, but what we need is a change of policy, because the policy we have has not worked. It is obvious, from the Minister himself, who has identifi ed a number of accidents, and his predecessor, in this Hon. Court.

What we need is a change of policy and, as you have rightly identifi ed, maybe that is true, the Police and the traffi c group that are incorporated in the Police Force.


The Minister: Mr President, the mobile camera would be situated in an unmarked vehicle.

Mr Delaney: It does not say that in the Statement.


The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Mr President, can the Minister expand on why, after the

Department undertook a major consultation exercise, which was only completed a year ago, or just over a year, they are now starting again? Is it because the Department did not get the answer that it wanted, when it took that exercise on, and is trying again and again and again, until it gets what it wants by wearing the public down?

Could the Minister, also, not accept that in this Statement that he made, he says:

ʻIt is alarming to note that below Creg ny Baa, just after the TT period, but with the temporary 60 mile an hour limit still in force, the highest speeds recorded were 139 mile an hour by a motorbike and 170 miles per hour by a carʼ

– does that not demonstrate that a speed limit does nothing? (Mr Cretney: Hear, hear.) It is enforcement and training and measures (Interjection by Mrs Crowe) to actually encourage people to drive carefully that does something, not just the speed limit.


The Minister: Mr President, I never said that, if a maximum speed limit is introduced, it is the whole panacea, and that people would adhere to it straight away. Of course it is education, of course it is enforcement.

I am not coming back because we did not get the right result last time.

The Speaker: But we have come back.



The Minister: Mr Shimmin mentioned in October 2004 that he would be coming back in a yearʼs time. That is what I have done, Mr President.

The speeds have not reduced; they have actually increased. If we look at the top of Richmond Hill, it used to be the second worst blackspot on the Island. It is now 29, one of the reasons being because of the speed limit being introduced and also the sign. So, I am sure that has had an effect on drivers going up the Richmond, and coming along. It has gone from second to 29th.

Education, driver awareness: we know in the UK, instead of people being fi ned for speeding and careless driving, what is happening, through the courts and the legislation there, they have to go on driver awareness courses. (Mrs Crowe: Good!) They have to learn again, basically, to drive and to adhere to speed limits, and see what is happening with other road users.

Mr President, you see it in town now, where there is a 30-mph limit and people drive up to that 30 miles an hour when, really, in the conditions and the traffi c on the road, they should be driving at 15 miles an hour. It is all a question of enforcement.

This is why my Department will have to work closely with the Constabulary, with the introduction of enforcement cameras, to try to say to the general public, driving at excessive speed is not going to happen, because it causes accidents. (Interjections)

Mr President, I am on record as saying that, on a personal note in the past, I have been against a speed limit. What I say is, if the introduction of a speed limit saves one life, then it would be worthwhile introducing that speed limit, because a life is worth far more.

The Speaker: You cannot prove that!

The President: Hon. Members, if I may, let us not get into a debate. I appreciate we are in an unusual position, but it should be questions to the Statement.

Mrs Craine, Hon. Member for Ramsey.

Mrs Craine: Thank you, Mr President.I, and other Members, live on the other side of the A18,

the Mountain Road, and the number of fatalities that there have been up there, and in the north, this year, have caused acute pain across our community.

However, I do not believe that the accidents that have taken place are entirely speed related. I think that, in addressing this paper, that is before us, in a manner which is restricting itself largely to speed is not going to address the problem.

I would like the Minister to consider widening it out, because, as he has just said, the issue, really, is one of enforcement. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) The instances that we see on a daily basis and, I believe, have contributed to the accidents I have referred to, are, basically, stupidity.

Mrs Crowe: Bad driving.

Mrs Craine: Stupidity and poor quality driving. (The Speaker: Hear, hear.)

Now, the Minister, in his paper here, is referring to two years for R-plates, but it is a known fact that, if they keep their R-plates on for two weeks, we are doing well, because nobody enforces R-plates, so they just discard them. You might as well not waste your time printing the paper, because

R-plates are not enforced.An issue that we have raised continuously –

The President: Question, Hon. Member.

Mrs Craine: – with the Department is one of insurance. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I know that Capt. Douglas went away to discuss displaying insurance on vehicles. I would ask: where that has got to and should that not be an issue that is introduced into this?

We are talking about speed, but as far as I am aware, the Department has done nothing about restricting engine size for young drivers. It is possible for young people to get on motorbikes or into cars, which are lethal machines, without any experience and I would ask, again –

Mrs Crowe: That is another question!

Mrs Craine: – where are those issues being addressed? I do not think that it goes far enough. I would further ask

that the issue with regard to white lines, and I have raised this with the Department, are so bound by guidelines that, in fact, where we have had fatal accidents and we have asked for white lines to be introduced, they have been restricted from doing so, because they do not meet the guidelines.

The Speaker: The Minister can change that.

Mrs Craine: Let us expand the guidelines –

The President: Right, Hon. Member –

Mrs Craine: Thank you.

The President: – with all respect, you are questioning the Statement, not making statements yourself.

Mrs Craine: Broadening the Statement.


The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. Mr President, I think everybody is concentrating on

enforcement. The Hon. Member for Ramsey said, people have the R-plates and then you could say they are thrown away after two weeks. Again, it all comes down to their enforcement, and to make sure. What we would have to look at on a wider issue is checking the vehicle.

But, of course, those R-plates can be taken off the car. It is the individual who is driving it, which is the problem. It has to be the person who has just passed his test who is in that car without R-plates, and if he is found, then we will have to… I am looking at it: ʻintroducing severe penaltiesʼ, in that he loses his licence and has to take it again.

So, you have got to bring in penalties to make it enforceable.

The Hon. Member mentions about showing a new insurance in the windscreen, as you do with your vehicle tax licence, (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) although the Hon. Member for North Douglas thinks there are about 2,000-odd vehicles without vehicle licence tax plates –

Mr Houghton: And that is only in your constituency! (Laughter)



Mrs Craine: Insurance.

The Minister: In Ireland, in southern Ireland, (Mrs Craine: Yes.) they have to show that they are covered by insurance (Interjections) and it is in the windscreen. We are talking to the insurance companies to see if it would be feasible, so that we will be able to show an insurance... It is mainly like a licence, which just fi ts in, like your tax disc, into your windscreen, which can be checked to show that your vehicle is insured.

I think I have answered most of those points.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Gill.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane.Specifically, in regard to this second consultation

process that the Minister is determined on, could he advise us – a yes or no – are the rest of the Council of Ministers in agreement with this consultation process and, specifi cally, is the Home Affairs Minister in agreement with it, and the Chief Minister?

Secondly, could he advise, because I am not aware through any conversation in the Home Affairs Department, what resource implications he anticipates would follow from the undoubted desire he has to introduce this all-Island speed limit, above and beyond those that he has already described, but, specifi cally, could he tell us about the rest of the Council of Ministers, the Chief Minister and the Home Affairs Minister?


The Minister: Mr President, I cannot answer for the Chief Minister or the Minister for the Department of Home Affairs –

Several Members: Go on!

Mr Gill: I think you know the answer. (Interjections)

Mr Delaney: Who is buying you the Brownie camera!

The Minister: What I have said, sir, is that I would go out for consultation. After that consultation, I would go back to the Council of Ministers. It is because it is such a decision, I would then come back to this Hon. Court, sir.

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

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. Just two or three points. The fi rst one is relating to the –

The President: Questions, sir.

Mr Quayle: Questions, I should have said, sir. (Laughter)

Relating to the 3,100 names on the petition website, it does not give the percentage for or against. The Minister previously says that out of the 408 letters he received, 69 per cent were fi rmly against, so I would ask: what was the percentage, within the 3,100 names on the petition, against the introduction of the speed limit?

The second thing is: does he not accept that the Police are unable to effectively monitor and control the speeds of

the traffi c around the Island, at the moment, in the restricted areas? Would he accept, for example, that in my area of Middle, the constituents would be far happier to see efforts put into controlling the traffi c in the controlled areas, which does not seem to be happening, rather than having the efforts diluted across the Island, where they are unlikely to be effective?

They would be my questions to start off with.


The Minister: Mr President, from what I can gather, the petition was for those who were against the speed limit. So, the 3,100 were against the speed limit, and 1,325 were the Manx residents. So, there was 100 per cent there, sir.

But, again, anything when you go on a website, people can go on a website numerous time and vote –

Mrs Crowe: Yes.

A Member: Some do.

Mr Delaney: They do.

The Minister: – and a lot of people, and I am hearing the Hon. Member for West Douglas behind me – they do.

Again, enforcement, Mr President, is for the DHA and the Constabulary, sir.

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

Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr President.Picking up on the point which was introduced by

the Hon. Member for Ramsey, I feel that the Minister… Does the Minister not agree that he is not recognising the information in the previous data which was submitted to this Court, approximately 12 months ago, and has the data changed since?

Capt. Douglas: Itʼs got worse.

Mr Teare: In that previously submitted data, there was a clear correlation between the age and experience of drivers, (Two Members: Hear, hear.) and their likelihood of being involved in an accident. Will he give an undertaking to this Hon. Court that he will approach the problem with a more open mind?

He seems to be on this speed-limit hobby horse. Could I make a helpful suggestion to him – I think it is helpful, he might have a different opinion – for example, would his Department consider restricting young and inexperienced drivers to low insurance group vehicles, as a method of trying to cut the appalling carnage that we are now seeing on the roads?


The Minister: Mr President, I do have an open mind. I think it was the Chief Minister, in an interview, a week or so ago, said he was appalled when he went up, off the Ballafl etcher Road to the testing centre, and saw the number of vehicles that had R-plates on, and the age and number of young people who are killed.

I am quite happy to go back and look at the suggestions


Island-wide maximum speed limit – Questions on Transport Minister’s StatementProcedural

which have been mentioned, on restricting the engine size of vehicles which people can drive when they pass their test and they have got an R-plate on it.

I believe, years ago, and I am not sure if it still applies, on motorcycles, you were only allowed to drive up to 125cc, after you had passed your test, and then, after a certain time then, you could go onto a larger cc vehicle, sir.

But I have an open mind, I will take suggestions on board.


Mr Singer: Thank you. The Minister seems to be concentrating mainly, in his

Statement, on speed enforcement: he does mention the red light camera. If I could take up the matter of yellow light camera. If I could take up the matter of yellow light camera. If I could take up the matter of lines and, particularly on the mountain, the ones that are there: is the Minister aware how much these are fl outed?

When he is looking at the placing of cameras, can something be done to place them at Kateʼs Cottage, I think, Windy Corner, where, every day, people are crossing the double white lines? They are just ignoring the law and they need to be stopped.

Can he try to ensure that some kind of observation is made at these places, so that people are stopped from this dangerous driving and causing accidents?


The Minister: Mr President, again, it comes down to enforcement, but what I can say is that my Department looks at accident blackspots. Windy Corner is number 2 blackspot; Brandish is number 1. In actual fact, my Department is going to carry out highway improvements at Windy Corner, starting on 7th March, sir.

Mr Downie: Seven weeks.

The President: Mr Downie, Member of Council.

Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President. I would just like to ask the Minister, if he has looked

at some of the recent cases before the courts, in the press, where not only have people been driving at excessive speeds, they have also been signifi cantly over the permitted levels of alcohol. Could I ask the Minister if he would comment on whether the signifi cant increase in the number of people driving with drink, over the Christmas and New Year – I think this could be an all-time record this year – concerns him?

Would his Department look at liaising with the Police to increase sentences for drink driving, dangerous driving, driving in a manner likely to cause danger to other road users and, in some cases, initiate a ban for 10 years and upwards, as they have done in the Scandinavian countries?

Several Members: Hear, hear.

The President: Minister. Enforcement.

The Minister: Mr President, of course, I do not condone driving under the infl uence of alcohol or drugs, and no-one in this Hon. Court would either, sir.

The sentencing policy is up to the courts, and it depends

upon what penalties they have. This is up to another place and Legislative Council to introduce legislation, to increase those penalties, which, then, the courts can impose.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mrs Crowe and Mr Downie: We will do, if you want.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Corkill.

Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr President. Will the Minister agree that the Department of Transport,

actually, has a number of measures, in relation to its road safety responsibilities, and that these measures are not just based on speed? He has already mentioned the accident blackspot matters.

But will he also inform this Hon. Court that, as more and more data is being collected by the Department, it is proven that speeds are rising on open roads, and that speed is more and more a contributory factor to death and injuries on the Islandʼs roads, and that this hard data, is what the Department responds to?


The Minister: Yes sir, I would agree with everything the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Corkill, has said.

The President: Hon. Member, Malew and Santon.

Capt. Douglas: Thank you, Eaghtyrane.Could the Minister undertake to approach the Minister

for Home Affairs, and ensure that all the members of his Department, including himself, are signed up to this road safety campaign, and that they understand the true defi nition of the word ʻenforcementʼ?


The Minister: Mr President, the Minister for Home Affairs and myself get on extremely well. We had a meeting only the other week with my offi cers and offi cers from the Constabulary, and, as far as we are concerned, we are working in unison, sir.

The President: Now, Hon. Members, I have been through my list. I think we have given it a good airing. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) I am appreciative that Members would like to go back for a second bite of the cherry, but I think, in this particular instance, we will draw that one to a halt.

Procedural

The President: Hon. Members, at twenty to eight, bearing in mind that I have to put it to you at eight oʼclock whether or not we continue to sit, I am a little reluctant to start another major debate. Would you agree that I turn to some Orders, Hon Members?

Several Members: Agreed.


European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 – European Communities (Food Safety Law) (Application) Order 2006 approved

European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973European Communities (Food Safety Law)

(Application) Order 2006 approved

14. The Chief Minister to move:

That the European Communities (Food Safety Law) (Application) Order 2006 be approved. [draft]

The President: In that case, I call upon the Chief Minister to move Item 14, if he would.


Mr President, European Community food legislation has, in the past, generally been made by means of Directives which the member states have had to comply with by enacting domestic legislation.

The same has been the case in the Isle of Man, where food related Directives that affect the Island have been complied with by the Department of Local Government and the Environment, making subordinate legislation under the Food Act 1996.

In more recent times, however, the European Community has tended to legislate, in relation to food matters, by means of Regulations or Decisions which apply to the member states directly, without further national legislation. The parts of the EC Regulations or Decisions which apply to the Isle of Man by virtue of Protocol 3 also apply directly and automatically in the Island.

DoLGE has now been advised that it cannot legally implement those aspects of European Community Regulations or Decisions that do not or may not apply under Protocol 3, even if to do so would be advantageous to the Island, unless they are fi rst applied by an Order made under section 2A of the European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973.

The Island is, of course, required, under Protocol 3, to comply with EU food and feed safety laws in all matters related to trade. However, it is considered to be desirable for the Island to generally model its food legislation as closely as practicable on those of its neighbours who happen to be European Community member states. This means, Mr President, applying more EU food and feed safety law than may be strictly necessary for the purpose of complying with the Isle of Man Governmentʼs obligations under Protocol 3.

This wider application of Community food law and food safety standards enables the Island to demonstrate to its trading partners and to its own customers that its food law and food safety standards, as enshrined in legislation, are comparable with international standards and are, therefore, of unimpeachable quality.

This should enhance consumer confi dence, and place Manx food products on an equal footing with quality products that may be imported from any European Community country. It should also serve to foster a positive image of our food products outside the Island, which is a very important consideration in a global market place.

Mr President, EC Regulation 178/2002 lays down the general principles and requirements of Community food law. It sets out the general framework under which all subsequent food or feed related law is to be made and lays down procedures in the important area of food safety.

The draft Order before the Court today has been drafted to apply, as part of the law of the Isle of Man, some but not all of the provisions of Regulation 178/2002 that may not already be applicable under Protocol 3.

The Regulation, as applied by this Order, expands certain defi nitions of food and food related issues already found within our Food Act 1996. It also deals with the general principles of food law and the principles of transparency, such as public consultation and information.

The Regulation sets out general obligations in relation to the food trade and specifi es general food and feed safety requirements and the responsibilities of food and feed businesses.

Therefore, Mr President, the draft Order has been prepared by the Department of Local Government and the Environment, in consultation with the Attorney Generalʼs Chambers, and the Council of Ministers has agreed that the Order should be made.

The Order before the Court today is, actually, only an enabling power that will ensure that DoLGEʼs authority to enforce the measures to be set out in future implementing Regulations will not be open to legal challenge. These Regulations are subject to ongoing consultation between DoLGE, DAFF and the Attorney Generalʼs Chambers, and they will come before this Court, in due course.

As required by the 1973 Act, the draft Order was laid before the Court last month, and I am now seeking the approval of Members of Tynwald for the Order to be made.

I beg to move.

The President: Mr Bell, Hon. Member.

Mr Bell: I beg second, Mr President.

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

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I was hoping to second, but I have some comments that

I would like to make on this. This was an Order which has, certainly, received quite a

lot of attention from within the Department of Agriculture. Clearly, there are some quite signifi cant – or, potentially, some signifi cant – implications here for the agricultural industry, so the Department has scrutinised this very, very carefully indeed.

We have met extensively with DoLGE and, indeed, the Attorney Generalʼs Chambers, to satisfy ourselves that this Order will be of benefi t for the Island and for the agricultural industry. I am absolutely sure, in my mind anyway, that this is something that we should be supporting.


The Speaker: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I just have a question for the Chief Minister. Can the

Chief Minister clarify or confi rm whether or not, in adopting these laws, which then makes the Isle of Man part, in terms of the law, of the EU, or gives us status similar, and applying EU law, if, subsequently, the feedstuffs or the food products are found to cause problems - and the example I give is the BSE situation – the Isle of Man, by adopting these laws, will also be entitled to any compensation, should a situation arise – unlike what happened when the BSE crisis happened


European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 – European Communities (Food Safety Law) (Application) Order 2006 approved

in the whole of the UK and the Isle of Man, where the Isle of Man had to bear the full cost itself, whilst adopting EU food standards for our own farmers?

Can the Chief Minister advise whether or not, by adopting this law, the Isle of Man, if such a situation should arise again, will be entitled fully to any compensation given to other EU countries, and if not, why not?


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I would just like to ask the Ard-shirveishagh two questions.

One is: if we decide that we want to withdraw from this applied Order, as far as food safety is concerned - which I would imagine we would not, but if we want to do that - can we do it unilaterally? Of course, we are only having to breach Protocol 3, as far as importing into the EU.

But the other issue is, also, I do hope that we will not end up with having a situation where we will not have the homemade jam table at the local WI being raided by 15 DoLGE and a few agoraphobic policemen, trying to police this piece of legislation!

The Speaker: Speeding to get there!

Mr Earnshaw: Enforcement.

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill.

Mr Gill: Yes, thank you, Eaghtyrane. On a wider issue of policy, could the Chief Minister

advise us if this is part of the trend to draw the Isle of Man into a wider European association of some description or other?

Whilst I have no diffi culties with the provisions of this Order, as he has described them, I would fl ag up that I would have grave concerns about the Government introducing legislation of this sort, which would have the effect of drawing the Isle of Man ever closer to Europe, without having the benefi t of a policy statement or a debate, in advance of that.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Rimington.

Mr Rimington: Yes, Mr President.This particular piece of legislation, as my hon. colleague

from the Department of Agriculture…, has been subject to considerable discussion and, indeed, I must at this point apologise to the Court that, at one point in the last sitting of Tynwald, myself and my colleague were actually absent from the Chamber, discussing this issue with the legislative draftsman, when we should have been in the Chamber voting on Government business.

I would give that little apology now. But it was purely focused on this particular, quite complex issue of European legislation and its application to the Isle of Man.

In saying that, we have looked at the implications of this particular legislation and how it would affect us, it does not draw us any further into the web of the European Community than we are, in fact, already in. That was a decision that was made, obviously, some considerable time ago.

What, in effect, has happened is that, since the time that Protocol 3 came into being and sat within a particular body of European law, at that time, Protocol 3 has remained as is,

but the body of European law has moved on and on and on. Our law has, unfortunately... well, not unfortunately, it has naturally not kept pace with that, in the way that we apply certain provisions.

So, it is for that reason that this has been necessary that, where we do fi nd issues that we want to implement European legislation, to our advantage, and a forthcoming issue will be the very issue the Hon. Speaker raised, which was in relation to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE), as it is concerned, then we need to be able to bring provisions in to that, in line with the European Community, so we can export our agricultural products into the adjacent isle.

It is in that respect that this has to be done, and it is because the European Community have changed their method of implementing their law, which our law is now out of step with, that we have to make these particular changes.

On the question of compensation, I understand that that would not be the case, and that, as our own jurisdiction, we do not give and we do not take from the European Community. We would be responsible for that and, at some future point, Regulations relating to compensation will be before you.

But we have checked on the point that the Hon. Member for Onchan raised: can we withdraw? Yes, we can withdraw. It might be a step that we would be extremely reluctant to take, because it would unravel too many things and cause signifi cant problems in drawing up corresponding legislation ourselves, which might be legally if not impossible but extremely diffi cult. But we can withdraw, not only the Application Order, but any subsequent Regulations that we choose to bring in, or part thereof that we choose to bring in, in the future.

The President: Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President, and can I thank the Minister of DoLGE for answering those questions.

I will, indeed, also refer to them and, of course, the reason here, as I think I said in the preamble, the Ministers of both DAFF and DoLGE, together with relevant offi cers, met... well, I think it was on 13th January, to clarify and iron out any issues, both in relation to this measure and future proposed European Community Application Orders. Therefore, it has been under a lot of scrutiny, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has already said in his contribution, and, after that scrutiny, he is content with the situation from DAFF.

Now, if I could take Mr Speaker s̓ question: unfortunately, no, we would not in any way, because of enacting this, apply then to be able to get funds from the European Union for any compensation, as he did demonstrate through BSE.

Again, Mr Rimington did answer Mr Gill, but it does not draw us any further into the EU. What it does is it allows us to apply bits of the EU, if you like, into our own legislation, when it benefi ts the Isle of Man.

So, I suppose, in some ways, it gives us a little more control over what we do take in from the EU. So, it does not draw us any closer, it just gives us that extra option.

I think, if I take Mr Karranʼs point, yes, the answer is we can withdraw from it. The answer to the jam, I think, again: there is no threat to the homemade jam, at the local fairs or whatever.


European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 – European Communities (Food Safety Law) (Application) Order 2006 approvedEuropean Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 – European Communities (Uzbekistan Sanctions) (Application) Order 2005 approved

Procedural

So, Mr President, in summing that up, I would suggest that, perhaps, it gives us more control over what we do adopt, because we are actually doing it ourselves and, indeed, it will have to come to this Hon. Court, when that deliberation has taken place, and it will have to come back here. This is only the enabling power in which to do it, sir.

I beg to move.

The President: Hon. Members, the motion I put to the Court is printed at 14, that the European Communities (Food Safety Law) (Application) Order 2006 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973European Communities (Uzbekistan Sanctions)

(Application) Order 2005 approved

15. The Chief Minister to move:

That the European Communities (Uzbekistan Sanctions) (Application) Order 2005 be approved. [SD No 902/05]

The President: Item 15. Chief Minister.


As Members will be aware, Uzbekistan was a part of the former Soviet Union until 1991. Now an independent country, it has the largest armed forces in central Asia, there is no real internal opposition and the media is tightly controlled by the state.

The UN has, in the past, said that the use of torture in this country is systematic. The country has been sporadic in bombings and shootings in recent years, which the authorities have blamed on Islamic extremists. In May 2005, troops opened fi re on people in the eastern city of Andizhan protesting against the jailing of people charged with Islamic extremism.

The European Union strongly condemned the reported excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the security forces in Andizhan, and the United Nations called for an independent, international inquiry.

However, the Uzbek authorities failed to respond adequately to this international concern. In November last year, the European Union approved Council Regulation 1859/2005, which set out specifi c restrictive measures with respect to Uzbekistan, in particular a ban on the sales, supply, transfer or export to the country of equipment which might be used for internal repression, and a ban on technical or fi nancial assistance related to such equipment.

The Order was made in December using the power relating to EU sanctions in section 2A of the European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973, which allows an Order to be made that comes into force with immediate effect, but for which the approval of Tynwald must be sought as soon as practical.

Mr President, I now beg to move that Order be approved, sir.

The President: Treasury Minister, Mr Bell.

Mr Bell: I beg to second, Mr President.


Mrs Hannan: When I was going through my papers I thought I would look up a little more about Uzbekistan, and I would just like to point Members to the website about Uzbekistan. It is absolutely fascinating.

The damage that was done to that country and the agriculture, the salinisation, I think it is, the neutralising of the sea, the Aral Sea. It is fascinating, and I would just refer Members to that.

Its Human Rights are absolutely horrendous. They are trying to get people back from Pakistan, I think it is. (Mr Bell: Kazakhstan.) Kazakhstan, yes, they are trying to get people back from there, and they are afraid that they will be tortured, if they go back.

So, it is absolutely horrendous, but if you would like to look at the history of the country and the environment, it is just absolutely amazing. Uzbekistan, just on the web, and you will fi nd it.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Delaney.

Mr Delaney: I would just like to ask the Chief Minister, does he agree with the pronunciation of that particular country – because we agree with the Order, but we would like to get the right country!

Mrs Hannan: Uzbekistan. (Interjections)

The President: Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister: Yes, I thank Mrs Hannan for her support and for her directions on the website, which, if I can get mine switched on, I will make an attempt to familiarise myself (Laughter) a little more with that.

Therefore, I beg to move the European Communities (Uzbekistan Sanctions) (Application) Order 2005, sir.

Mr Delaney: Pronounce it for us, Donald! (Laughter)

The President: Hon. Member, the motion I put to the Court is printed at 15. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Procedural

The President: Now, Hon. Members, it is eight oʼclock. I am in your hands. I am aware, Hon. Members, that Mr Speaker has some business to put before the Keys. I am content to continue with the Tynwald sitting at 10.30 in the morning, with your agreement, Hon. Members. (Several Members: Agreed.)

If you are agreed to that, Hon. Members, the Council will now withdraw and leave Mr Speaker to place such business before the Keys as he sees fi t.

Thank you, Hon. Members.

The Council withdrew.

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006 653 T123House of Keys

House of Keys – Bills for First ReadingMinerals (Amendment) Bill : Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill

Public Health (Tobacco) Bill : Insurance Companies (Amalgamation) Bill

House of Keys

BILLS FOR FIRST READING

Minerals (Amendment) BillRepresentation of the People (Amendment) Bill

Public Health (Tobacco) BillInsurance Companies (Amalgamation) Bill

The Speaker: Please be seated, Hon. Members. Hon. Members, an Order Paper has been circulated under

Standing Order 6(3), at my direction. I now call upon the Secretary of the House, Bills for First

Reading, Item 1.

The Secretary: Mr Speaker, the Bills for First Reading are: the Minerals (Amendment) Bill, introduced by the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle; the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, introduced by the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Cretney; the Public Health (Tobacco) Bill, introduced by the Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Rodan; and the Insurance Companies (Amalgamation) Bill, introduced by the Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, that concludes the business before the House. The House will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning, in Tynwald Court.

Thank you Hon. Members.

The House adjourned at 8.02 p.m.

(HANSARD) Douglas, Tuesday, 17th January 2006 · 578 T123 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006...

Documents

Transcript of (HANSARD) Douglas, Tuesday, 17th January 2006 · 578 T123 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY 2006...