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 · mr p karran, mr z hall and mr d j quirk...

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings,

Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2013

T Y N W A L D C O U R T

O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L

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

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

HANSARD

Douglas, Tuesday, 16th April 2013

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website

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

Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted

on application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office. Supplementary material

subsequently made available following Questions for Oral Answer is published separately on the

Tynwald website, www.tynwald.org.im/Official Papers/Hansards/Hansard Appendix

Volume 130, No. 11

ISSN 1742-2256

http://www.tynwald.org.im/

http://www.tynwald.org.im/Official

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 16th APRIL 2013

_________________________________________________________________

1128 T130

Present:

The President of Tynwald (Hon. C M Christian)

In the Council:

The Acting Attorney General (Mr J Quinn);

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

Mr R P Braidwood, Mr D M W Butt, Mr M Coleman, Mr C G Corkish MBE,

Mr E A Crowe, Mr A F Downie OBE, Mr J R Turner and Mr T P Wild,

with Mr J D C King, Clerk of the Council.

In the Keys:

The Speaker (Hon. S C Rodan) (Garff);

The Chief Minister (Hon. A R Bell) (Ramsey);

Hon. D M Anderson (Glenfaba); Mr L I Singer (Ramsey);

Hon. W E Teare (Ayre); Mr A L Cannan (Michael); Hon. T M Crookall (Peel);

Mr P Karran, Mr Z Hall and Mr D J Quirk (Onchan);

Mr R H Quayle (Middle); Mr J R Houghton and Mr R W Henderson (Douglas North);

Hon. D C Cretney and Mrs K J Beecroft (Douglas South);

Hon. C R Robertshaw and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East);

Mr R A Ronan (Castletown); Hon. G D Cregeen (Malew and Santon);

Hon. J P Watterson, Mr L D Skelly and Hon. P A Gawne (Rushen);

with Mr R I S Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald.


_________________________________________________________________

1129 T130

Business Transacted

Leave of absence granted ............................................................................................................ 1131

Papers laid before the Court ........................................................................................................ 1131

Photos to be taken in Chamber .................................................................................................... 1133

Thanks to all involved in community during recent heavy snowfalls ......................................... 1133

Bill for signature – Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill 2012 ................................. 1133

Questions for Oral Answer

1. Pay day loans – Maximum percentage rate ........................................................................... 1133

2. Rebalancing the budget – Government policy ...................................................................... 1134

3. Crown dependencies – Collection of unpaid taxes ................................................................ 1136

4. Media Development Fund – £8 million transfer to General Reserves .................................. 1137

5. Pinewood Film Advisors – Films written down .................................................................... 1139

6. Media Development Fund – Low interest margin ................................................................. 1141

7. Pinewood Film Advisors – Calculation of management fee ................................................. 1142

8. Public sector housing – Standards of decency....................................................................... 1142

9. Disability Living Allowance – Reciprocity on the difference ............................................... 1145

10. Onchan Commissioners – Rent increase cap ......................................................................... 1147

11. Voluntary Landlord Registration Scheme 2013 – Registration details ................................. 1151

12. Kemmyrk – Minister’s involvement as director .................................................................... 1153

13. Staff accidents and damage to Government property – Department’s policy ....................... 1154

14. Whitley pay awards – Withholding payments to bus drivers ................................................ 1155

15-16. Local farming community – Livestock losses; proposed Government support .............. 1156

17. Proposed sewage treatment plant – Field 3; details ............................................................... 1163

18. Landlords and tenancies – Details of complaints received .................................................... 1166

19. Tuberculosis – Information and protection offered ............................................................... 1168

20. Noble’s Hospital – Possible privatisation of services; details ............................................... 1169

21. Plans to contract out services – Consultation with unions .................................................... 1170

22. Health Service manual workers – Proposal to privatize; value for money ............................ 1170

Announcement of Royal Assent .................................................................................................. 1172

Questions for Written Answer

23. MEA – Details of Government-owned bonds ....................................................................... 1173

24. Media Development Fund – Account details ........................................................................ 1173

25. Departments’ settlement payments - Details ......................................................................... 1173

26. Glenside, Victoria Road, Douglas – Current works; reason and costs .................................. 1174

27. Dairy herd – Size; reason for decrease .................................................................................. 1174

28. Live beef cattle and sheep – Numbers exported; slaughtered on Island ................................ 1176

29. Chief Executives – Employment costs; contract terms ......................................................... 1179

30. Sewage treatment works – Proposed sites; details ................................................................ 1181

31. Meary Veg; proposed new site at Ramsey – Details ............................................................. 1183

Orders of the Day

4. Economic Policy Review Committee – Statement by the Chairman ...................................... 1184

The Court adjourned at 12.59 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

5. Mill Road Yard Development Phase 2, Peel – Expenditure approved .................................... 1184

6. Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald – Second Report and recommendations –

Amended motion carried ......................................................................................................... 1189

7. Social Affairs Policy Review Committee – First Report and recommendations –

Debate commenced ................................................................................................................. 1193



_________________________________________________________________

1130 T130

Social Affairs Policy Review Committee – First Report and recommendations –

Debate continued – Amended motion carried ............................................................................. 1211

8. Customs and Excise Act 1993 – Export Control (Iran Sanctions) (Amendment)

Order 2013 (Application) Order 2013 approved .................................................................... 1218

9. Customs and Excise Act 1993 – Export Control (Amendment) Order 2013

(Application) Order 2013 approved ....................................................................................... 1219

10-11. Collective Investment Schemes Act 2008 –

Collective Investment Schemes (Fees) Order 2013 withdrawn;

Financial Services Act 2008 – Financial Services (Fees) Order 2013 withdrawn ................ 1219

12. Financial Services Act 2008 –

Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013 approved ................... 1219

13. Sea-Fisheries Act 1971 –

Sea-Fisheries (Licensing, Etc) (Amendment) Bye-Laws 2013 approved ............................. 1220

14. Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Inland Fisheries (Fees) Order 2013 approved .......................... 1221

15. Petroleum Act 1998 (of Parliament) –

Submarine Pipe-Lines (Designated Owner) Order 2013 approved ....................................... 1222

16. Merchant Shipping Registration Act 1991 –

Merchant Shipping (Qualified Owners of Manx Ships) (Relevant Countries)

Regulations 2013 approved ................................................................................................... 1223

17-18. Proceeds of Crime Act 2008 – Terrorism (Finance) Act 2009 –

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code 2013 approved;

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Online Gambling) Code 2013 approved ........ 1224

19. Proceeds of Crime Act 2008 –

Proceeds of Crime (Business in the Regulated Sector) Order 2013 approved ...................... 1225

20. Proceeds of Crime Act 2008 –

Proceeds of Crime (Failure to Disclose Money Laundering – Specified Training)

Order 2013 approved ............................................................................................................. 1225

21. Dangerous Goods Act 1928 – Dangerous Goods (Fees) Order 2013 approved .................... 1226

22-23. National Health Service Act 2001 –

National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) (No 2)

Regulations 2013 approved; National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment)

(No. 2) Regulations 2013 approved ...................................................................................... 1226

24. Disability Discrimination Act 2006 – Implementation of Act – Amended motion carried ... 1231

The Council withdrew.

House of Keys ............................................................................................................................. 1241

The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.


_________________________________________________________________

1131 T130

Tynwald

The Court met at 10.30 a.m.

[MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair]

The Deputy Clerk: Hon. Members, please rise for the President of Tynwald.

5

The President: Moghrey mie, Hon. Members.

Members: Moghrey mie, Madam President.

The President: The Lord Bishop will lead us in prayers. 10

PRAYERS

The Lord Bishop

Leave of absence granted

The President: Hon. Members, I have given leave of absence to the Hon. Member for West

Douglas, Mr Shimmin, who is on Government business outside the Island.

Papers laid before the Court

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

The Clerk: Er lhimmey jeh ny pabyryn enmyssit ayns ayrnyn jeih as nane-jeig, ta mee cur 15

roish y Whaiyl ny pabyryn enmyssit ayns ayrn nane jeh’n Chlaare Obbyr.

With the exception of the papers mentioned at Items 10 and 11, I lay before the Court the

papers listed at Item 1 of the Order Paper.

Customs and Excise Act 1993

Export Control (Iran Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2013 (Application) Order 2013 [SD

No 0101/13]

Export Control (Amendment) Order 2013 (Application) Order 2013 [SD No 0102/13]

Collective Investment Schemes Act 2008

Collective Investment Schemes (Fees) Order 2013 [SD No 0113/13]

Financial Services Act 2008

Financial Services (Fees) Order 2013 [SD No 0114/13]

Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013 [SD No 0112/13]

Sea-Fisheries Act 1971

Sea-Fisheries (Licensing, Etc) (Amendment) Bye-Laws 2013 [SD No 0065/13]

Fees and Duties Act 1989

Inland Fisheries (Fees) Order 2013 [SD No 0066/13]

Petroleum Act 1998 (of Parliament)

Submarine Pipe-Lines (Designated Owner) Order 2013 [SD No 0111/13]

Merchant Shipping Registration Act 1991

Merchant Shipping (Qualified Owners of Manx Ships) (Relevant Countries) Regulations

2013 [SD No 0070/13]


_________________________________________________________________

1132 T130

Proceeds of Crime Act 2008

Terrorism (Finance) Act 2009

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code 2013 [SD No 0095/13]

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Online Gambling) Code 2013 [SD No

0096/13]


Proceeds of Crime (Business in the Regulated Sector) Order 2013 [SD No 0097/13]

Proceeds of Crime (Failure to Disclose Money Laundering – Specified Training) Order

2013 [SD No 0098/13]

Dangerous Goods Act 1928

Dangerous Goods (Fees) Order 2013 [SD No 0104/13]

National Health Service Act 2001


Regulations 2013 [SD No 0118/13]

National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2013 [SD No

0117/13]

Reports

Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald – Second Report – 2012-2013 [PP No 0057/13]

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

Documents subject to no procedure

Customs and Excise Management Act 1986

Isle of Man Freeport Free Zone Designation Order 2013 [SD No 0094/13]

Value Added Tax Act 1996

Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2013 [SD No 0103/13]

Value Added Tax (Consideration for Fuel Provided for Private Use) Order 2013 [SD No

0209/13]

Value Added Tax (Increase of Registration Limits) Order 2013 [SD No 0208/13]

Electronic Transactions Act 2000

Electronic Transactions (General) (No 2) Regulations 2013 [SD No 0223/13]

Department of Education and Children

Response to Social Affairs Policy Review Committee – First Report – The Centralised

Pupil Database

European Community

EU Secondary Legislation – March 2013 [GC No 0017/13]

Appointed Day Orders

Cash in Postal Packets Act 2013

Cash in Postal Packets Act 2013 (Appointed Day) (No 1) Order 2013 [SD No 0205/13]

Cash in Postal Packets Act 2013 (Appointed Day) (No 2) Order 2013 [SD No 0206/13]

Reports

Annual Report on the Activities of the Manx Industrial Relations Service for 2012 [GD No

0010/13]

Photos to be taken in Chamber

The President: Hon. Members, can I just advise you that there will be photographs taken of

the Court during this morning’s session for the purposes of our Annual Report. 20


_________________________________________________________________

1133 T130

Thanks to all involved in community

during recent heavy snowfalls

The President: I would also, on behalf of Members of the Court, wish to endorse remarks

which have been made by the Chief Minister and other Ministers in respect of the excellent and

valiant efforts that were made during the snowstorm period some weeks ago. (Members: Hear,

hear.) Hon. Members, I do not intend to list all those people. I am sure they have all been

recognised by the Ministers concerned, but I do believe that we owe them a debt of gratitude, and 25

to all the members of the public who showed true community spirit in coming to the assistance of

their fellow members of the community during that time.

Bill for signature

Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill 2012

The President: We have one Bill for signing: the Children and Young Persons (Amendment)

Bill 2012. With the consent of the Court, I shall circulate it for signing whilst we proceed with

business. Are you content? 30

It was agreed.

Questions for Oral Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

Pay day loans

Maximum percentage rate

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

In view of the increase in pay day loans if he will bring forward legislation to prescribe a

maximum percentage rate for loans whose repayment can be enforced through the Courts?

The President: We move now to our Question Paper.

I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

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

35

The President: The Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Madam President, we are aware of the publicity on this subject

currently being generated in the UK and are working with the Office of Fair Trading to assess the

extent to which there is a similar problem on the Island, and if so, the nature and scale of that 40

problem. In that context, Council will make an evidence-based policy decision as to whether

legislative change is required, and if so, the nature of such legislative change. At this point,

Madam President, if the Hon. Member has any factual evidence which could assist us in that

exercise, we would be very grateful.

45

The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, could the Ard-shirveishagh inform this Court of some sort of

timescale as far as this issue is concerned? Is not the Ard-shirveishagh aware that there are

actually companies on the Island that are providing this service at the present time as well, and 50


_________________________________________________________________

1134 T130

does he not feel that we need to be making sure that we do not go back to when we first entered

this Court, when we had the big issue of loan sharks and we managed to sort that out? Now we

have got the problem as far as this is concerned, so can we have some sort of timescale?

The President: Chief Minister. 55

The Chief Minister: I am aware, Madam President, of the period the Hon. Member refers to,

when the loan sharks really were a problem on the Island.

We do not have a specific timetable to work to at the moment, other than to recognise that

there potentially could be a problem here and that the Office of Fair Trading, in conjunction with 60

Council, will be working as quickly as possible to identify whether there is a problem and what

sort of solution would be appropriate.


65

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that we are now going into a

difficult time for a large section of our community, and this is when the likes of loan sharks and

the likes of pay day loans will flourish? That is why there is a need for us to actually get on with

sorting this issue out.

Would he not consider that trying to break the logjam that we have got with the Treasury 70

Minister over the issue of credit unions being able to be established on the Island, getting the

insurance cover as far as this is concerned, as one way forward to try and help this section of the

community?

The Chief Minister: I think credit unions are a separate issue altogether, Madam President. 75

I have given an undertaking and recognised that there is potentially a problem with pay day

loans and that we will do our very best to expedite a solution, one way or the other, to that matter.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Houghton.

80

Mr Houghton: Thank you, Madam President.

When the Hon. Chief Minister mentioned about the potential problem, there is a great problem

in this area, Madam President.

Can the Chief Minister advise this Court of the advice he has received from his Office of Fair

Trading as to the extent that they see, at this point in time…? 85

Madam President, constituents are advising that they are unaware that the Office of Fair

Trading is active in this, and are coming to us instead. Could he also look to bringing forward

some form of publicity on this whilst the whole issue of this is measured?

The President: Chief Minister. 90

The Chief Minister: As I said, Madam President, the Office of Fair Trading is currently

reviewing the situation to understand just how extensive a problem and how serious a problem this

pay day loan issue might be. So, at this point, I cannot give the Hon. Member the answer he wants

as to how extensive, but we do recognise there is potential there and we are moving as quickly as 95

possible to find a solution to it.

Rebalancing the budget

Government policy

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

What action he has taken to involve the Trades Council in dialogue about the hard economic

times ahead; and what alternative policy his Government has in place in relation to

rebalancing the budget?

The President: Question 2, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. 100


_________________________________________________________________

1135 T130

The President: Chief Minister to reply.

The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Madam President, in 2012, the Industrial Relations Forum was

established as a subcommittee of the Council of Ministers. The Forum meets regularly and

includes senior political and union representation. It was created primarily to ensure that 105

Government works together and has full dialogue with all trade unions, including the Isle of Man

Trades Council, to address Government’s three strategic priorities of growing the economy,

rebalancing the budget and protecting the vulnerable. Through its inclusive membership, the

forum also works to strengthen communications between Government and individuals working in

the private and public sectors. The Forum provides the Isle of Man Trade Union Council and all 110

the participating unions with direct access to Ministers and Members, including the Treasury

Minister and the Forum Chairman, the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne. I have personally

attended several of these meetings and will continue to play an active role in the future.

On the second part, Madam President, the alternative to rebalancing the budget is not

rebalancing the budget, and I do not see that as an acceptable option. 115

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that this Member totally

agrees that we have to rebalance the budget, and that the issue that somehow we would not support 120

that would be crazy?

Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that we are not getting that message over, and it is not

getting over because the fact is that dialogue is not seen to be filtering down to that level as far as

the seriousness of the problems that we have got?

125

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: I cannot take from that question what level the Hon. Member is talking

about, but if the Hon. Member is referring to the unions not understanding the message, I do not

know how more strongly the message can be spelled out. I have met them on the Industrial Forum, 130

on certainly two occasions, to spell out very clearly the extent of the problems and the issues

which are confronting us. I know the Treasury Minister has – indeed, the Treasury Minister is a

member of this committee; I know the Chairman of the Forum has, the Minister for DEFA. We

have spelt it out at great length and it is hard to understand how a responsible union leadership

cannot, at this stage, understand the depth of the problems facing the Isle of Man at the moment 135

and be willing to work with us to find a solution.


Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that the fact is maybe there needs to be a 140

dialogue with the unions, instead of talking at them, but with them, so that they could be part of

the way of trying to find out how we are going to financially prioritise, and maybe they can help?

Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that they might be up to help, with their input, to try and

stop the unreasonable spending on things that are quite wasteful, as far as they can see, and maybe

help you to create the efficiencies that need to be done in order for us to rebalance the budget? 145

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Madam President, a dialogue is a two-way exercise. (A Member: Hear,

hear.) Many of the unions are working very closely with Government at the moment and are 150

working very constructively, very positively, to try and find solutions alongside the suggestions

put forward by my officers and indeed politicians. So there is a very constructive dialogue going

on in some quarters.

Unfortunately, I have to say that that does not apply to all unions and Government can only do

so much to engage with unions. If they are not prepared to meet with us and discuss these issues 155

then, frankly, they will be left behind and the debate on resolving many of these issues will be

carried on without them.

I can add, though, Madam President, that I am meeting the leadership of Unite this week and I

hope to be able to take the dialogue a step further and perhaps improve those communications. 160


_________________________________________________________________

1136 T130

TREASURY

Crown dependencies

Collection of unpaid taxes

3. The Hon. Member for Rushen (Mr Skelly) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:

If he will make a statement on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s claim to collect £1 billion of

unpaid taxes from Crown dependencies; and what he believes the Isle of Man portion to be?

The President: Question 3, the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly.

Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.

Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my ennym. 165

The President: The Minister for the Treasury to reply.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, Madam President.

I announced to this Hon. Court in my Budget that I had signed a memorandum of 170

understanding with HM Revenue and Customs which would introduce a disclosure facility

commencing this month. Similar facilities were announced later in Guernsey and Jersey. The 2013

UK budget estimated that the three disclosure facilities will generate just over £1 billion of

additional revenue over the next five years. The facilities allow UK taxpayers wishing to

regularise any undeclared worldwide income and gains to make a full disclosure to HMRC and 175

pay any resulting tax, penalties and interest via the published process.

It is my opinion, Madam President, in view of the longstanding policy of the Isle of Man in

relation to the exchange of tax information with the UK and many other countries, that there will

be little, if any, money here which needs to be regularised. I cannot comment on the Chancellor’s

estimate or determine what part of it might relate to the Isle of Man, particularly as UK taxpayers 180

may use the disclosure facility to declare income and gains from anywhere in the world.

Thank you, Madam President.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Skelly.

185


If this figure appears fabricated and political spin, can the Treasury Minister advise what action

he proposes to take in order to correct his UK counterpart?

The President: Minister. 190

The Minister: We do have a dialogue with the UK and it is interesting, really, that the UK

itself, HM Treasury, acknowledged, as part of the papers that they released during the budget, that:

‘The estimated revenue raised by these measures is uncertain as there is little hard information about the value of UK

individuals’ financial assets in these Crown Dependencies.’

Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which reviews the budget and the financial

projections contained within the UK budget, under the heading ‘Uncertainty’, clause B.9… and I 195

quote:

‘Tax repatriation from Crown Dependencies: The estimated revenue raised by these measures is uncertain, as there is little hard information about the value of UK individuals’ financial assets in the Crown Dependencies. There is further

uncertainty in the costing around how individuals affected will respond to the policy.’

In Accountancy Age, published in April 2013, PWC Tax Partner, Stephen Camm, is quoted as

saying:

‘The general perception from people to the suggestion that HMRC would recover £1 billion in the three UK

dependencies is that it is wildly overestimated.’

The President: Supplementary, Mr Skelly.

200


_________________________________________________________________

1137 T130


Can I ask the Treasury Minister if he feels that his UK counterpart is aware of the massive

financial flow of inward investment from the Isle of Man to the City, and does he feel this is

recognised and valued by the UK Treasury?

205

A Member: Hear, hear.

The President: A slight straying from the original, but you may answer, sir.

The Minister: I personally met the UK Chancellor and I explained that to him face to face. It 210

has to be recognised, and should be recognised by the UK, that during the financial downturn of

2007-08, the funding – nearly £300 billion – which came from the three Crown dependencies was

not volatile. It was stable and it assisted the UK at a very, very difficult time, and because those

funds stayed there, they were stable, it did reduce the demands on the UK taxpayer and the

Exchequer to fund the UK banking industry. So I feel that the Isle of Man has played an important 215

part, not only in this but also too over the last decade, in moving down a predetermined path on

meeting our international obligations of openness and transparency, and the latest step for that was

the announcement that we would enter into a UK FATCA-style agreement as soon as we could

work out the fine print, as it were. But we are very well advanced with that now.

220

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Skelly.


Can the Treasury Minister advise if the Isle of Man’s early stance on FATCA has been

beneficial to the Island, and in particular, how did the UK Treasury react to our open and 225

transparent approach, which has always been consistent?

The President: Minister.

The Minister: I have to say that during a recent visit to London, where I accompanied the 230

Chief Minister, the discussions that we had there were quite clear, that the stance that the Isle of

Man had taken was very, very favourably received. It has, I feel, put us in a different league

altogether and I think that the Isle of Man’s stance of being the leader here, we moved first, we

moved early and that has been recognised and I think it puts us in a completely different position

and it will enable the Isle of Man to move forward confidently for the future. 235

Media Development Fund

£8 million transfer to General Reserves

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

When he expects to transfer the £8 million from the Media Development Fund to General

Reserves?

The President: Question 4, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Madam President.

I ask the Question standing in my name.

240



As and when the recoupment of income attributable to the library, ICAv, archive films, is

recovered by the Media Development Fund, these amounts will be transferred into general 245

revenue. The issue is one of timing.

Madam President, I have recently written to Hon. Members to further explain the balance of

the Media Development Fund and the subsequent allocation of the £25 million earmarked for

future investment by Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd. I had hoped that my written explanation would

help to clarify this matter, but would once again reiterate my invitation to Hon. Members to meet 250


_________________________________________________________________

1138 T130

with Treasury officers and myself when we will be able to set out the mechanics of the Media

Development Fund, or indeed any other fund.

In the meantime, I am happy to repeat the explanation I have previously set out and I will also

provide a copy of this letter for publication in Hansard. I quote:

‘… there has been reference made to the balance of the Media Development Fund as being some £33million at the

time of the June 2012 debate and that [at the March 2013 sitting of Tynwald, I quoted the forecast balance as] at 31st March 2013 to be some £34.2million.

As indicated in my response this balance represents both cash and film investments ([representing] the slate of

previous films with further recoupment expectation). The present allocation is £24million in cash and £10.2million in film investments.

As regards the allocation of the Media Development Fund, following the appointment of Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd

I can confirm that the sum of £25million earmarked for [investment] management by [this company] has been set aside as approved by [this Hon.] Court and [any] remainder representing both cash and archive film investment made prior

to the Pinewood Film Advisor Ltd contract will be returned to General Revenue [as and when such amounts are

realised]. [As I have previously stated] The issue is purely one of timing. As and when the recoupment of [any investment is

realised in terms of cash] these amounts will be transferred into General Revenue. [Naturally, any unrealised

investments will remain as general assets of Government. To be absolutely clear, only £25 million is set aside for continuing investment by PFA, and any surplus will form part of general cash reserves.]

As a further note of reassurance Honorable Members may wish to refer to the Annual Budget (“Pink Book” for 2013-

14) at page 30 where the Internal Media Development Fund [identifies] transfers [as] some £1,500,000 during 2013-14… to General Revenue, this represents the first major tranche of that recoupment.’

Thank you, Madam President. 255

The President: A supplementary question, Mrs Beecroft.


Would the Minister not agree with me that, really, this transfer of £8 million back to General 260

Reserves is nothing more than a pipe dream because he is relying on income from old films that

have not broken even yet? Not one of them has broken even, so where does he think this £8

million is suddenly going to miraculously appear from to be transferred back to General Reserves?


The Minister: We do have a recoupment process, and as and when the films are sold in

various formats then those funds will be returned into the cash general revenue. It is always

subjective, the amount of funds that will be recovered, but I feel that we are on target to realise if

not all, then a very significant portion of that money. 270



I wish I could share the Treasury Minister’s optimism on this, but if he is so optimistic that we 275

are going to get the money back, why is there actually nothing to show this in the Budget? There is

no figure showing even a hopeful figure coming back.


280

The Minister: I would refer the Hon. Member back to my previous answer when I said that

£1.5 million was forecast to come back during the current year.

The Hon. Member will be aware that some time elapses between the completion of a film and

the film being distributed. There are various forms of distribution rights, both territorial and

additionally whether they are in cinemas, DVD, whether they go via satellite or on terrestrial 285

television, and there are all these forms of recoupment which occur over a protracted period of

time which will lead to funds coming in.

So, inevitably, it is a long, drawn-out process and over that time funds will come back in. They

will be collected on behalf of the Government.

290

The President: The Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell.


_________________________________________________________________

1139 T130

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Madam President.

Can the Treasury Minister indicate… When he says, ‘I am happy that we are on target,’ can he

apply a little bit more clarification to that and explain to us what target he is hoping to hit here and 295

when he expects to hit that target? How many years ahead are we looking at?


The Minister: The target we have set for the current year is £1.5 million and I feel that we are 300

on target to achieve that, Madam President.

Pinewood Film Advisors

Films written down


Whether any of the films made prior to the appointment of Pinewood Film Advisors have been

written down in the last 12 months; and, if so, if he will provide details of such write downs?



I ask the Question standing in my name. 305



As with any investment, an annual review will be carried out in relation to the Media 310

Development Fund. This review is underway as part of the annual accounts preparation. Such

accounts will be presented to Tynwald in the usual course of events. Any provisions that are made

are on an individual film basis or as a provision against the Fund as a whole.


315

The President: A supplementary, Mrs Beecroft.


I wonder if the Treasury Minister could explain the difference in the figures of the brought-

forward balance of the Media Development Fund then, because according to him there is a cash 320

balance of £23,495,000 and investments of £1,505,000, which is the £25 million, I assume,

regarding Pinewood. Then there is £460,000, which is the former CinemaNX charged account, and

then there is £13.2 million, which are the films that were under CinemaNX.

That adds up to £38,660,000, but he is saying the balance is actually £34,294,000. That is a

difference, an unexplained difference, of £4.366 million, and I can only think that some films have 325

been written down to explain that difference, that films are actually the £13.2 million less that

£4.366 million, but I would like some clarity on that.


330

The Minister: I explained in the Answer to the original Question, Madam President, we will

be reviewing all these figures as part of the preparation of the Dark Blue Book and the Light Blue

Book, which are the detailed Government accounts, and the Dark Blue Book will be signed off by

the Government auditors.

335

The President: The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: Thank you, Madam President.

As Chairman of the Economic Scrutiny Committee, I am interested to hear how the Minister

would assess the first six months of the Pinewood era. Are local companies and people seeing the 340

benefit of this agreement?


_________________________________________________________________

1140 T130

The President: That is quite a broad question based on the original, sir. The Minister may

reply, if he wishes.

345

The Minister: Certainly there has been a rapid increase in activity over the last six months. I

feel that the scheme has gone very well – and I am sure that the Hon. Member for South Douglas

will expect me to say that, but overall it has gone well. There are five productions which have

been completed and that is more than the preceding two years put together. This increased activity

is delivering an increased economic activity on the Island, and certainly from feedback I have had 350

from local companies, especially in the north of the Island, it has brought good business to them.

The Ramsey film studio has been a major part of attracting some of these films to the Island

and the new Ramsey hotel did feature quite strongly in accommodation for one of the films – I

think it was Camera Trap – which was shot on the Island.

So, overall, there is good economic development, and the thing we have to recognise too is that 355

this has taken place during the winter period when it is not so easy to get heads on beds.


Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Madam President. 360

I really would just like a simple answer to the unexplained difference of £4.366 million. If the

films are only just being looked at now to be written down, what is this difference if it is not the

write-down of films?


The Minister: As I said, Madam President, we will be reviewing the figures as part of the

preparation of the Dark Blue Book first, and then the Light Blue Book after that, and there will be

explanations and reconciliations contained within those two publications by the Government.

370

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Braidwood.

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Madam President.

Following on from the Hon. Member for Ramsey’s question, could the Minister confirm that –

before the Pinewood deal was signed, following the Oxford Economics Report of June last year – 375

since the inception of the film industry in 1995, the Isle of Man economy has benefited to the tune

of £290 million?

The President: Straying from the original, Hon. Members.

Minister. 380

The Minister: I am pleased to confirm that certainly the Oxford Economics Report puts the

figure at £290 million.

We should also remember that, since the implementation of the Media Development Fund, the

balance has never fallen below £25 million, and what we have invested in the industry now is less 385

than 10% of the gain that the taxpayer has accrued over the last 15 years, so I think that is very

good business, Madam President.

The President: A supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell.

390


Returning to the tenor of the Question, Madam President, can I ask the Treasury Minister,

please, to clarify, as soon as he possibly can following the review, the discrepancy in figures that

has been mentioned in this Hon. Court today and advise Hon. Members accordingly?

395


The Minister: At the risk of labouring the point, Madam President, these figures will be

clarified, with the benefit of the Government auditors, when we come to produce the Blue Book.

400

The President: Final question, Mrs Beecroft.


_________________________________________________________________

1141 T130


Does the Minister not agree with me that, actually, the figures in the Pink Book that we are

given to vote on should be checked before they are published? Why are we waiting for them to be 405

checked and reconciled to the Blue Book, and why is there this discrepancy in his Budget?


The Minister: The Hon. Member who has just resumed her seat will be aware that the Budget 410

is prepared some time before the end of the financial year. Certainly the figures that are contained

within the Budget are estimates, and as the year rolls on, finishes, and the end-of-year accruals are

prepared, then we will be able to give more clarity and come up with what are the final figures for

the end of the year.

That is no different from any other organization: you project forward your figures, but it is 415

only until the end of the year, after the year, that you are able to confirm those figures.

Mrs Beecroft: But they usually add up.


Low interest margin


Pursuant to his statement on 19th March 2013 regarding the Media Development Fund, what

is meant by low interest margin?


420




425


What I was trying to convey was that we operate in a historically low interest environment, and

that as such the interest earned on Government’s pool funds, which include the Media

Development Fund, will reflect that environment.

430

The President: Supplementary question, Mrs Beecroft.


Would the Treasury Minister acknowledge that normally, when you are talking about a low

interest margin, it is the margin between the deposits and a borrowing? Would the Treasury 435

Minister confirm and give assurance to this Court that there is going to be no borrowing involved

with the Media Development Fund?


440

The Minister: Yes, I am quite happy to give that assurance. There is no borrowing. There is

no gearing going to be involved with the Media Development Fund.

The point I was trying to make in my earlier comments was that we are in an unprecedented

period of low interest rates. I have undertaken some further research, going back to the

establishment of the Bank of England in 1694, and certainly between 1720 and 1820 interest rates 445

were flat-lined at 4.5%. We are current now at one half a per cent and in the meantime interest

rates have peaked at over 16%. So I think, overall, we have to readjust to the new environment.

Additionally, the Bank of England, by the Funding for Lending Scheme, has pumped more money

into the economy to support lending by UK banks, and this once again has driven down interest

rates. 450



_________________________________________________________________

1142 T130


I thank the Minister for his assurance that there is no current borrowing using the Media 455

Development Fund in any way, but could he give assurance that there will be none in the future?


The Minister: I cannot give categoric assurances which might bind my successors in office, 460

but certainly I would have no intention of doing it.

Pinewood Film Advisors

Calculation of management fee


Whether the management fee paid to Pinewood Film Advisors is a fixed fee or some other

calculation; and, if so, what the other calculation is?






The management fee paid to Pinewood Film Advisors is a fixed fee. 470

SOCIAL CARE

Public sector housing

Standards of decency

8. The Hon. Member for Douglas East (Mrs Cannell) to ask the Minister for Social Care:

Which legislation defines standards of decency for public sector housing?

The President: Question 8. The Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell, to ask the

Minister for Social Care.


I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. 475

The President: Minister for Social Care to reply.

The Minister for Social Care (Mr Robertshaw): Thank you, Madam President.

The same statutory requirements to ensure premises are reasonably suitable for occupation 480

apply equally to private and public sector premises.

The following pieces of existing legislation contain the statutory requirements for basic fitness

of housing in both public and private sectors: Local Government Consolidation Act 1916, section

220; Housing Act 1955, sections 1-16 and sections 28-36; Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982;

Housing Act 1990; Public Health Act 1990; and Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. 485


The President: Supplementary question, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Madam President.

Can I thank the Minister for those comments. Does he feel that there is enough legislation to 490

regulate those particular industries; and why is he bringing the new Landlord Bill forward?


_________________________________________________________________

1143 T130


The Minister: I am satisfied that the public sector housing – if that is what he means by ‘those 495

industries’ – is satisfactorily regulated, and I do not think that the private sector rentals industry is

satisfactorily regulated; otherwise, I would not be bringing forward the Bill that he knows that I

am.

The President: Supplementary question, Mrs Cannell. 500


I am grateful for the Minister’s indicating which legislation he is referring to. Can I ask him

why then, in the Landlord and Tenant (Private Housing) Bill consultation document, dated

February 2013, rather than just put in, on page 7: 505

‘Public sector tenancies are not affected as they already have standards for decency in place set out in existing

legislation.’

– this document did not then make reference to the relevant legislation that he has referred to this

morning? Why did he not see fit to include that to try and make his case to the private landlord

industry for adopting these changes?


The Minister: Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to offer clarification now, as we

are still in the consultation period. The fact of the matter is that the consultation refers and relates

to the private sector and therefore did not concern itself with the public sector, which is a separate

entity. Thank you. 515

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, could the Shirveishagh not explain to this Hon. Court… Obviously,

the backbone, as far as this legislation is concerned, actually would be Environmental Health, and 520

what action is Environmental Health actually taking, as far as doing their job under the existing

legislation, in order to make sure that the rogue landlords that we do have… We have got half a

dozen who are particularly bad landlords, who seem to have got away with immunity for years

with friends in this Court. Why haven’t Environmental Health not addressed the issue of sorting

them out? 525


The Minister: Thank you, Madam President.

Again, I welcome the question. It further clarifies an issue of considerable public interest at the 530

moment.

If it were possible for Environmental Health to achieve eradication of the sort of landlord that

we are concerned about here, already then it would have occurred, which is actually the

explanation as to why this Bill is being brought forward. Thank you.

535

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Houghton.


With the Hon. Member for East Douglas’s question, which covers which legislation defines

standards of decency, can the Minister point to me where in that legislation it covers damp houses 540

with gales blowing through ill-fitted and old, recycled, second-hand doors? When he can, can he

also quote the sanctions against those local authorities for those who are found in that way?


545


The Hon. Member for North Douglas is well aware of the fact that where the public sector

considers itself not achieving the necessary standards, it does everything it possibly can to achieve

appropriate standards.


_________________________________________________________________

1144 T130

As I think he is referring possibly to certain properties in Willaston, then he is aware of the fact 550

that the local authority and ourselves have embarked on a trial to establish how we need to rectify

the problems, and that he is also aware that we, as the Department of Social Care, are very

cognisant of the need to invest very significant sums of money to raise the standards of properties

in North Douglas.

555

The President: A supplementary question, Mrs Cannell.

A supplementary question, Mr Quirk.


Can I ask the Minister, regarding his officers and himself, how many prosecutions has his 560

Department brought in? In his own words, he says it is less than 2% of the housing stock. How has

he not brought any deregistrations forward for these properties?


565

The Minister: I am going to have to sort of guess, Madam President, as to quite what he

means by the question.

The 2%... I did not refer to 2%. I referred to 3% to 4% of properties in the private rental sector

being not fit for human habitation, and not 2% that I am aware of. (Interjection) Well, I am

advising him now that the figure is 3% to 4% and I have repeated that figure a number of times in 570

public platforms.

As far as the level of prosecutions is concerned, it is the fact that we have not been able to, as it

were, necessarily address the inadequacies in the public sector and that we have not had the

necessary level of prosecutions required to achieve a reconciliation of the problem. It is still there

and I am determined to see an end to it. 575


The President: A supplementary, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Madam President. 580

Would the Minister not agree with me that with all the legislation he has just given to this

particular Court, there is more than adequate legislation for prosecutions prohibition notices? I am

wondering why his Department has not done this.

The Minister: Madam President, the answer to his question is no. 585

The President: Question 9…

A supplementary, Mrs Cannell.

Mrs Cannell: Sorry. Thank you, Madam President. 590

Can I just ask the Minister, all the legislation that he has referred to this morning – and I hope

he accepts that I will now go away and study it to ensure that he is giving me the correct

legislation to look at – is he satisfied that that legislation provides for public sector decency

standards akin to that which he is now trying to impose upon the private sector?

595


The Minister: I think it might be helpful, Madam President, if I point out that effectively what

we are dealing with here is the difference between basic fitness and decency standards. There are a

number of areas which exist already in the public sector covering issues such as – and perhaps you 600

will want to make a note of this – letting or managing the property, managing the tenancy and

personal requirements, and they are already captured in the arrangements between the public

sector authorities and public sector tenants, but are not satisfactorily captured in – currently, at

least, anyway – private sector conduct. 605


_________________________________________________________________

1145 T130

Disability Living Allowance

Reciprocity on the difference

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

Pursuant to his statement on 19th March 2013 regarding Disability Living Allowance, what is

meant by reciprocity on the difference?




The President: Minister for Social Care to reply.


Hon. Members may recall that from April last year, whilst the UK government increased the 615

rates of Disability Living Allowance payable there by 5.2%, we decided not to increase the rates

of Disability Living Allowance payable here on the Island.

Therefore, since 9th April 2012, the rates of Disability Living Allowance payable in the Island

have been slightly less than the UK rates. In particular, the higher rate of the mobility component

payable in the Island is £2.65 per week less than in the UK. This had a particular impact for 620

Motability leaseholders in the Island who effectively exchanged their higher rate mobility

component of DLA for a vehicle supplied by Motability.

Because the Isle of Man higher rate mobility component is £2.65 a week less than it is in the

UK, Isle of Man residents entering into a lease with Motability since 1st July 2012 have had to

make an up-front payment of £413.40, equivalent to the difference in the Isle of Man and the UK 625

rates of the higher-rate mobility component for the three-year term of their lease.

On 8th April 2013, the UK government further increased its DLA rates by 2.2% in line with

the UK Consumer Price Index. On the same date, we increased our rates of DLA generally by

1.8%, in line with the Isle of Man CPI. However, the higher-rate mobility component was

increased by 2.3%, so the difference between the Isle of Man and the UK rates remain at £2.65 per 630

week going forward.

Madam President, this is what I was alluding to when I said, on 19th March, and I quote:

‘We intend to keep, as it were, reciprocity on the difference.’

I should also mention that when initially moving for approval of the relevant Orders, I am

recorded in Hansard as having said, and I quote:

‘... the higher-rate mobility component of DLA will increase by 2.3%, to ensure that the difference in the rates of this component between the Isle of Man and the UK remains the same from April 2013, which of course will be of

particular benefit to [Motability] leaseholders.’




Just a couple of supplementaries to a very lengthy explanation, which I thank the Minister for. 640

I am just a bit concerned that we have actually slipped behind this ‘reciprocity on the

difference’ that he is referring to, because the figures that I have been given show that, actually,

the difference has gone up to £3.85 this year, as opposed to £2.65. It could be that I am

misinformed, but I would be grateful for clarity on that.

Also, he does seem to use some strange phrases, and the one that he said, as well as 645

‘reciprocity on the difference’ is that it had been adjusted so that we retained the new parity

achieved last year. Well, as far as I can see, we had parity until last year. We did not achieve a new

parity because, actually, he destroyed the parity that was there (Mrs Cannell: Hear, hear.) and it

does look like we are actually moving in the wrong direction, and I wonder –

650

The President: Could we have a question, please, Hon. Member?


_________________________________________________________________

1146 T130

Mrs Beecroft: Yes. Could he explain how we achieved a new parity, when as far as I can see

he actually destroyed a parity that we had?

Could he further explain how this treatment of the most disabled in our community is actually 655

in line with one of the three core aims of this Government, which is protecting the vulnerable?


The Minister: Thank you, Madam President. 660

I am perfectly happy to enter into discussion at another time with the Hon. Member for

Douglas South in order to establish to her satisfaction that the points I have made this morning are

accurate. I would be very happy to do that.

I think it is clear that what I am saying is that the difference last year of £2.65 has been

retained, and in order to retain that we slightly increased the allocation that we should have made 665

from 1.8% to 2.3%.

I think what the Hon. Member needs to take into account is that the world is changing in a

pretty dramatic way and that in the UK now, from effectively... I think it was last week that DLA,

as we know it, disappeared and was replaced by PIP, which we are watching very carefully. So

there are a whole range of issues that we have got to gauge carefully and not… and as I think she 670

will recall last time I discussed this, there was the whole matter of making sure that we do focus

on the vulnerable in a disabled area, because this is a universal benefit, not a targeted one against

those in most need.

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Houghton. 675


The Minister made short mention of the Motability Scheme. Can he just confirm that that

Scheme now will have parity, as in the United Kingdom; and when he does confirm that, if he

does confirm it, will those disabled people who are re-leasing vehicles under that Scheme be 680

equally treated as per the United Kingdom? If that is so, would he apologise for the complete mess

that was made this time last year under the same arrangement?


685

The Minister: I cannot confirm, Madam President, that we have parity. The situation

established last year remains, and I make no apologies.


690


I am still struggling with whether it is percentages or a figure that we are maintaining this

difference. Are we going by percentages, or is it a firm £2.65 every week that our most severely

disabled are disadvantaged to their UK counterparts?

695


The Minister: We have kept the figure last year the same as this year.


700


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, does the Shirveishagh not agree that this is a major change of policy

with this new administration in the fact that we are actually going backwards, as far as the

vulnerable are concerned? Does he not agree that the fact is that what we are seeing here is going 705

against the proposals that the Council of Ministers believe is an inclusive society, and not an

exclusive society, and does he feel that this is why we are now starting to have problems with

different sections of the community, as far as the unions are concerned and others – because

clearly we are not making decisions on the basis of the ones who can most afford to be cut being

cut and affecting this vulnerable section of the community? 710



_________________________________________________________________

1147 T130


I think last time this was discussed, when I made the original presentation, I did explain that 715

DLA, effectively, which is going to ultimately be replaced by PIP… that what we were doing was

actually a work in progress. It was a journey we were on. We were very much aware of the fact

that DLA is a universal benefit, and as such is attributed to those entitled, regardless of their

financial need. If I take him back to his first point, what we are finding ways forward on is to

target those who financially need that support the most. 720

So, no, we are absolutely in line with our principles that we have set out and we are pursuing

them as ardently as we can and as quickly as we can, but these things do take time to work out.


725


I will just try once more. Could the Minister please confirm that this £2.65 is going to be the

difference, or is it going to be some other percentage? Would the Minister not agree that if he

would please just give some straight answers on this, instead of political spin and quoting

percentages and this, that and the other… All I am wanting to know is is the £2.65 the reciprocity 730

on the difference that he talking about, or can it mean something else? (Interjection by Mr Karran)


The Minister: I have already, Madam President, answered the question directly. I have said 735

we are retaining the difference.

Mrs Beecroft: Yes, but what is it?

The President: The Hon. Member for Onchan, a supplementary. Mr Karran? 740

Mr Karran: No.

Onchan Commissioners

Rent increase cap

10. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Quirk) to ask the Minister for Social Care:

Why he will not support Onchan Commissioners to cap rent increases to a maximum of 15%?

The President: We move on, then, to Question 10. I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr

Quirk.

745


I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

The President: Minister for Social Care.

750


I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain why the Department will not support Onchan’s

request to cap their rent increases to a maximum of 15%.

However, before doing so, I would like to explain the rationale behind the rent increase of CPI

inflation of 1.8% this year, together with a revision of the rent points system, as it has been some 755

time since this has been discussed. The provision of an equitable method of determining rent on a

property, based on its size, quality and amenity value, is fundamental in determining a reasonable

rent.

It is important for the rents to be proportionate to the property, rather than based on a historic

formula which did not take into account the significant investment made in the public sector 760

properties over the last 20 years. This is why the Department took the decision to revise the rent

points system at this time. Members will be aware of the new system, as the points scheme has

already been circulated.


_________________________________________________________________

1148 T130

With regard to the specific question raised about Onchan, I accept there may be properties

which, as a result of this revision, have seen a significant rise in rental charged, and this is 765

legitimate to reflect the true value of the property size etc.

My Department has contacted those authorities who have raised concerns over the size of some

of the rent increases under the new scheme and advised them to work with individual tenants who

are in genuine financial hardship and unable to pay the rent under the new scheme, on a case by

case basis. 770

Simply applying a blanket percentage cap on the rent increase does not give individual tenants

experiencing hardship the opportunity to discuss with their landlord the actual cost of the rent

increase, how they can achieve the required rent for the property, or identify any alternative

options which may be available to them to help ease their personal situation. It also means that

those who can afford will not now have to. Quoting a percentage does not give a true indicator of 775

what this means in real terms to real people.

I am happy to support Onchan looking to provide an alternative approach to achieving the

required rent for a property where tenants who are in genuine financial hardship occur. I cannot,

however, support a blanket cap for Onchan tenants, as it is inequitable to those who are now

paying a rent proportionate to their property. 780


Mr Quirk: Thank you, Madam President, and thanks to the Minister for that.

Could I ask the Minister does he support, if tenants are asking for the pointing of their house 785

previously, before the rent increase came about, that they are entitled to have that, and they are

also entitled to have the pointing valuation which is done now for the increase?

If he is supportive of that, who is the arbitrator in this particular… If there is a dispute between

the tenant and the local authority, will your Department be the arbitrator?

790

The President: Minister

The Minister: I think the Hon. Member for Onchan makes a perfectly valid point, that where a

tenant has been adjusted to a significant extent, they would want to have advice from the local

authority as to how that adjustment came about, particularly in a property that might previously 795

have not enjoyed an appropriate or correct pointing anyway.

As far as arbitration is concerned, there has not been any call for it at this stage, but we would

be perfectly happy to engage in the process with the local authorities should they request us so to

do.

800

The President: A supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that the idea of having a large garden when

you are a pensioner, actually adding points to your valuation, to the cost of your rent, when you do

not really want a large garden, seems rather bizarre? 805

Does he not feel that the problem he has got with his proposals is the fact that he has not really

got the right dialogue with the right people?

Could I also ask the Shirveishagh, does he believe that social housing authorities should trade

to make a profit?

810


The Minister: Dealing with the second point that the Hon. Member for Onchan is referring to,

absolutely not. It contradicts the whole principle of what public sector housing is. Public sector

housing is housing that enjoys and experiences rent which is not actually market led. In other 815

words, there is, by definition, an element of subsidy involved in it. So I cannot, in those

circumstances, see a situation where an authority could or should make a profit, and in fact, it

would be, arguably, impossible so to do.

The President: A supplementary, Mr Karran. 820

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that he contradicts his position, as far as that is

concerned, when they are always quoting the exploitation of individuals out in the private rental

sector, where people want not just their capital return but also their capital growth as far as their


_________________________________________________________________

1149 T130

investment in the private rental market? How does he justify his statement as far as that is 825

concerned?

Would he not ask why, with this points system, we have a situation where we have got

pensioners with large gardens who do not really want large gardens, and the only alternative for

them is to move, at great expense, so not to end up with extra rent on their rent?

Would the Shirveishagh not agree that the first issue is that if his justification for his bizarre 830

actions over local authorities is not about profit and about trying to follow the private sector as far

as private sector, surely his previous question should have been that he is wanting profits?


835

The Minister: I am sorry to say that I think the Member for Onchan is talking nonsense. (A

Member: Hear, hear.) I have made the point clearly, and I will repeat it, that public sector housing

is subsidised housing by the general taxpayer.

Mr Karran: Onchan Commissioners is not, sir. 840

The Minister: It is not a question of profitability –

Mr Karran: Onchan Commissioners is not, sir.

845

The Minister: I have got the floor. As far as the pointing system is concerned, the Hon.

Member should be aware that this administration is trying its level best to make good a totally

unsatisfactory situation which occurred over a period of years where the rental structure was

totally inadequate and was not dealt with properly.

We have to enlarge and expand the public sector housing provision, we have to have more 850

housing for those who require smaller properties, and I implore the Member to take account of the

overall position and the general dynamic involved in my Department in putting together a complex

matrix of policies which ultimately will work to the benefit of all concerned.

The President: The Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton. 855


Continuing on this particular angle, Madam President, does the Minister not really think he has

taken this a stage too far by charging tenants for the size of their garden? Does he not think that

that is not proportionate, just like the United Kingdom’s policy on bedroom tax in local authority 860

properties is inequitable, unacceptable and not proportionate? What is he going to do, Madam

President, when some of these tenants hand back their gardens to their local authorities for them to

cut and look after because they will be washing their hands of them and so it will cost more? The

whole issue is totally bonkers. (A Member: Hear, hear.)

Will he not take this matter back to his Department and reconsider it? 865


The Minister: Madam President, no I will not. I am content with the pointing system. It is

simply an amendment, an adjustment to a system that has been in place for many, many years and 870

had to be updated, and is. In time I am sure the Hon. Member will come to understand the wisdom

of all these collective items coming together to produce a new housing policy for the Isle of Man.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mrs Cannell.

875


I just want to go back to what the Minister said earlier in answer to the Hon. Member for

Onchan. He said that local authorities cannot make a profit and that it is subsidised housing.

Is the Minister not aware that under the Housing Act 1995, section 3 provides power for the

local authority to sell local authority houses? Can he advise the Hon. Court whether or not they 880

would be able to retain the profit on that, or does it go to Government?



_________________________________________________________________

1150 T130

The Minister: I think that the Hon. Member initially, when he referred to profit, was talking in 885

a broad sense, rather than a specific issue on a given property. I am sure that any given sale,

should that occur on the part of a local authority… and I am not personally in favour of selling off

public sector properties, but that must be seen in the context of the broader account, which would

still show a deficit short of taxpayer funding.

890


Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that Onchan Commissioners actually make a

profit? Would the Minister also not agree, when talking the rhetoric that we have in this Hon.

Court, that is it not a fact that sheltered accommodation is far more subsidised than local authority 895

housing per unit?

Is it not also a fact that first-time buyers, with the hidden subsidies, are far more subsidised

than local authority housing? Does he not agree that it is not me who is talking nonsense in this

Hon. Court, it is him talking doubletalk on the fact that he says he does not want to make a profit,

yet he tries to use the public sector market as far as the rental increases as far as the council houses 900

are concerned?

And finally, would the Shirveishagh not agree that the reason you have got such a massive

deficit as far as local authority housing in the likes of Heather and Hazel Crescents and other areas

where you have done the most bizarre things as far as replacing, at great public expense, as far as

local authority houses are concerned? It would be far better getting the auditors in to actually 905

justify the situation as far as local authority housing costs are concerned.

The President: You are rather straying.

Minister.

910

The Minister: Madam President, I am not taking a lecture off the Member for Onchan (A

Member: Hear, hear.) on this issue.

Mr Karran: I am just talking facts – (Interjections)

915

The President: Hon. Member.

The Minister: I am a reasonably new Member trying to sort out a situation which essentially is

making and expanding public sector housing and making sure it is sustainable. The account

(Interjection Mr Karran) that I was presented when I was allocated this Ministry was of total 920

unsustainability and it is something that the Member for Onchan and others should have sorted out

long ago.

The President: A final supplementary, Mr Quirk.

925


Could I ask the Minister then, could he establish that Onchan Commissioners are not a drain on

his Department? And, if he is happy to support that, why would he then want to not support the

Commissioners in capping the rent at 15%? It seems a nonsense to me. If they were a drain, I

could understand it, but if they are not a drain on your Department and, as said around here, there 930

is indication that they are making a profit on their housing stock and they own the housing stock…

Just to be helpful to the Minister too, you cannot sell the local authority housing unless

Tynwald approves it.

Mr Houghton: Hear, hear. 935


The Minister: Sometimes I begin to think that Onchan considers itself the independent union

of… 940

Mr Karran: Just talk sense –


_________________________________________________________________

1151 T130

The Minister: It is an element of the whole, and my responsibility is to present equitable

policy across the Island. The only reason that Onchan currently has not got any deficit funding is it 945

has not invested recently in new public sector housing; the bulk of the other authorities have.

If Onchan is running against the trend and saying to me that there is no waiting list of 1,000-

something people desperately in need of housing, then I would accept that point. The fact of the

matter is there are many, many people on the waiting list looking for public sector housing, in dire

straits, and we have a duty for them as well as everything else. 950


Mr Karran: Well, manage it better, sir.

Voluntary Landlord Registration Scheme 2013

Registration details


How many landlords have registered under the Voluntary Landlord Registration Scheme 2013;

what his definition of a landlord is; what his definition of a letting agent is; and what the

minimum standards for landlord registration are?

The President: Question 11, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk. 955



The President: Minister for Social Care to reply. 960


The Department of Social Care introduced the Landlord Registration Scheme on a voluntary

basis, following a public consultation on the principle of having a scheme, on 4th February 2013.

Since the introduction a few weeks ago, a total of 11 landlords have so far voluntarily submitted 965

an application to be registered and subsequently have been accepted onto the list of registered

landlords.

With regard to the Hon. Member’s query about definitions and minimum standards, I can

confirm this information is freely available on the Department’s website, so as this information is

lengthy, I do not propose to list it here today. 970

I would, however, add that as we get closer to bringing the Landlord and Tenants (Private

Housing) Bill to another place, I will of course be inviting Hon. Members to a presentation, so that

we can altogether go through the proposals in great detail.

Madam President, in closing I would also emphasise that I have extended the public

consultation period on these proposals and would remind Hon. Members to encourage those who 975

might have concerns to make a submission to the Department.

The consultation closes on Friday, 3rd May 2013.


980


I am actually disappointed that the Minister did not pick up other parts of the Question. I will

just ask them again. Would the Minister not give us a definition, then, of a landlord? It does say

that in the Question. And the definition of a letting agent – it does say that in the Question. Okay,

the minimum standards are available in its consultation document, but they are not specific. I am 985

disappointed with the Minister not trying to explain – because we are all trying to be a little bit

helpful to him.

So could I ask the Minister then, could he give us some answers to those questions?


The Minister: Madam President, I am deeply grateful for the Hon. Member’s assistance.


_________________________________________________________________

1152 T130

What is the definition of a landlord? The definition of a landlord in the context of the Landlord

Registration Scheme is as follows: those persons who own accommodation and/or manage the

properties. 995

What is the definition of a letting agent? The definition of a letting agent in the context of the

Landlord Registration Scheme is as follows: estate agents with letting management

responsibilities.

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Cannan. 1000

Mr Cannan: Thank you, Madam President.

In an earlier answer, the Minister indicated that 3% to 4% of properties were targets of his

landlord-tenant regulations. Where does he get this information from? How many estimated flats

or properties is he referring to? Does he really think that, when we have a possible three out of 1005

every hundred properties requiring attention, we should have such broad and wide-sweeping

legislation potentially on the table? How does he actually think that is going to benefit either the

rental market or the local economy?



Effectively, the use of the word ‘wide-sweeping’… The fact of the matter is that if a landlord

or a letting agent are conducting themselves properly, they should already be doing what will be

set out in the Landlord and Tenant (Private Housing) Bill. So this is not going to change very 1015

much at all for most – for all – good landlords; it is going to be something of a non-issue for them.

It is necessary to create this platform in order to give us sufficient leverage to deal with

landlords who are failing in their duties – and some are. There are about 7,000 properties in the

private sector market, and as I have said to you before, it is estimated between 3% and 4% are not

fit for human habitation. This comes out of a survey produced in 2007. 1020

The President: Supplementary, Mr Quirk.


Could I ask the Minister then why he never considered actually talking to the landlords 1025

themselves?

Also, can I ask, regarding the consultation, would he welcome – instead of having all the red

tape which, does he not agree, we are trying to prevent… people going through hoops and red tape

and legislation – a local landlords’ or an Isle of Man landlords’ registration association? Actually,

they could do the work themselves without Government actually getting involved. 1030


The Minister: Just a little bit of clarity, Madam President: this is not bureaucratic, this is not

loads and loads of red tape – it very simple, very straightforward. It is something that a landlord 1035

will have to achieve once every three years, very straightforward.

Why didn’t I talk to the landlords? I do talk to the landlords, I am talking to the landlords. (Mr

Quirk: Recently?) Very recently indeed. In fact, when I met them, I encouraged them to form a

landlords association – that is what they have done – because I think it is important to have a

lobbying group. What I did say to them at the time was it was important that that association be as 1040

broad-based as possible in order to ensure that the submissions to me would not be deemed to be

factional and therefore biased.

As far as the other point he makes, I think what he means in his question is something close to

what was asked of me by certain landlords: why can’t the landlords create their own scheme?

Well, the scheme that they proposed, effectively was, in some ways, more demanding than what I 1045

am asking for. The landlords’ scheme was a voluntary one. Therefore, the good landlords would

volunteer and the bad landlords would not, so that would get us absolutely nowhere.

I am talking simply about basic standards of decency, and I am absolutely sure that the

Member for Onchan would not disagree with those sentiments.

1050

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


_________________________________________________________________

1153 T130

Mr Downie: Thank you, Madam President.

I would just like to ask the Minister if he has had an opportunity to look at similar legislation

which has just been introduced in Scotland, at what appears to be great cost? I would just like to 1055

ask the Minister if the Department has actually factored the cost of this Scheme into the overall

costings of the Department, or can he confirm or deny that the oversight of this Scheme is actually

going to be undertaken by a charity?



In answer to the Hon. Member of Council… and it is very important to say this because I do

not know where that has come from, this whole idea that somehow a charity is going to oversee it.

No, it is not; it is absolutely not going to happen. 1065

As far as the costs are concerned, the costs that the Department will incur and the income it

will enjoy have been articulated in the public arena already and this is now the second consultation

we are involved in. We did the principles February to April 2012, and now we are involved in

more specific consultation.

Kemmyrk

Minister’s involvement as director


If he will make a statement on his involvement as a director of Kemmyrk?

The President: Question 12, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk. 1070



The President: Minister for Social Care. 1075


I would refer the Hon. Member to the Register of Members’ Interests, which states that I

commenced as a director of Kemmyrk on 10th January 2011 and resigned as a director on 13th

February 2013. 1080

The President: A supplementary, Mr Quirk.


Can I ask the Minister why did he feel he had to resign? 1085


The Minister: Madam President, I felt I had to resign for the very reason that the Hon.

Member is on his feet, which is he is managing to misunderstand things all the time. 1090


Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that the fact is that you would get no pecuniary

interest, that you would more likely find yourself out of pocket by being a Member of a Minister 1095

as that?

Does he not feel that Members need to realise, when we are wanting to highlight conflicts of

interest – proper conflicts of interest – we should be looking at other things, like questions that

were down on Question 5, where some Members’ families had quite a profitable business as far as

that, or issues when we talk about the Oxford Economics Report, where that was actually done for 1100

Pinewood, and where…? These are real conflicts of interest… and that the Hon. Member, in this

case, has not got a conflict of interest, and I think it is wrong to infer that?


_________________________________________________________________

1154 T130

The Hon. Member might be talking through his ear as far as local authorities are concerned,

but this is something that should be applauded, that Hon. Members did get involved with such an

important thing. 1105

The President: Hon. Member, I do not think that is a question; it is a statement of your

opinion. The Minister does not need to reply.

Mr Watterson: Can I raise a point of order, Madam President? The Hon. Member there did

raise aspersions about Members in general, without raising any particular concerns. Could you 1110

advise that the place for that would be the Members’ Standards and Privileges Committee, and it is

quite wrong to raise those sorts of allegations – probably baseless – in this place, Madam

President?

The President: I would concur with the Hon. Member, and I think Members need to consider 1115

their statements in this Hon. Court.

Several Members: Hear, hear.

COMMUNITY, CULTURE AND LEISURE:

Staff accidents and damage to Government property

Department’s policy

13. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Community, Culture and

Leisure:

If he will make a statement on his Department’s policy on accidents involving staff and

damages to its property by staff?

The President: Question 13. The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

1120


The President: The Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure.

The Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure (Mr Cregeen): Thank you, Madam 1125

President.

My Department operates various processes in dealing with incidents or accidents, all being

applied in a standard and fair way. The normal procedure following an incident or accident

involving a staff member is for a report to be logged.

Depending on the seriousness of the occurrence, others may need to be advised, such as in 1130

cases reportable under the Health and Safety and other legislation. In cases of damage or injury,

Government insurers are also advised.

Line managers will then consider the facts of the report and investigate further, where

necessary. Each occurrence will be assessed to see if any further action is necessary, both to make

sure that we learn from the occurrence and to consider if any disciplinary action is appropriate. If 1135

there is sufficient evidence to suggest a staff member is at fault, then the appropriate disciplinary

procedure will be followed.

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Karran.

1140

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh just clarify for this Hon. Court that there are

different actions when accidents happen, as far as management being involved in accidents, cover

staff – as far as the strike is concerned – who are helping with the dispute, and the ordinary staff,

as far as the dispute is concerned?

Would he make available, if it comes to it, somebody independent to look at the different 1145

complaints that I keep on repeatedly being told by the union, that your Department is treating

different incidents with different criteria when it happens to different parts of your employment?



_________________________________________________________________

1155 T130


I thought I had made it quite clear in my Answer that we have a process, and quite frankly I am

amazed with the Member. On a number of occasions he makes unsubstantiated accusations, under

privilege, without substantiating them. I have requested him in the past to come to me with his

accusations, and he has failed to do so. If he has any accusations and any evidence, will he please 1155

come to the Department?

The President: Supplementary –

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not inform that there have been 1160

representations made by the unions and they have been stonewalled?


The Minister: Madam President, I am still awaiting any evidence. 1165

The President: Supplementary, sir.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, what does he class as evidence? If representations are being made by

the union representation as far as the inconsistency as far as discipline is concerned, does he feel 1170

that that is not evidence? Does he want to have a meeting at Unite the Union, and he can then go

through it with the individuals concerned?


1175

The Minister: Madam President, if the Member has any identified incident, would he please

tell me? I am more than happy to answer his question, but he fails to give me the evidence for any

of this. It is all accusation.

Whitley pay awards

Withholding payments to bus drivers

14. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Community, Culture and

Leisure:

How he justifies paying a group of employees present and previous Whitley pay awards, but

withholding such payments to the bus drivers?



The President: Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure to reply.

The Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure (Mr Cregeen): Thank you, Madam

President.

Whitley pay awards are negotiated centrally through the Whitley Council and are paid by the 1185

Department to all employees employed on Whitley Council terms and conditions. The terms and

conditions for bus drivers are not part of the Whitley Council arrangements, but provide for an

annual review of the basic rate of pay each April by local agreement. It was an agreement that this

would be analogous to the award in respect of the Whitley Council settlement for the three years

from April 2010. 1190

In the years since April 2010, payments have been made following local agreement. On 26th

February 2013, the Department received a request from Unite the Union that the £400 Whitley

Council lump-sum pay award be applied to the bus drivers. The Department responded to this on

8th March, indicating that it would be willing to negotiate the payment of this award and pointing


_________________________________________________________________

1156 T130

out that the £400 lump-sum payment had previously been incorporated in proposals for the 1195

settlement of the current industrial dispute in respect of terms and conditions of employment.

That letter closed by asking the union to propose dates for a meeting to negotiate the payment.

To date, no such dates have been proposed, a point I made clear to all bus-driving staff in my letter

to each of them dated 28th March 2013.

I would make it clear that, as the terms and conditions refer only to basic rates of pay and not 1200

to other payments, such as lump-sum awards, some form of local agreement is required. The

Department remains willing to make such an agreement and awaits a response from the union as to

its ability to find the time to meet the Department’s representatives to conclude the arrangements.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran. 1205

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply, I hope that this will clarify

the position that the union will now have an open door as far as this issue is concerned.


The Minister: Madam President, the union has always had the door open for them to come…

It is the union that have not actually come to us, and it surprises me, as the Member is a member of

Unite and has attended union meetings with his colleague from South Douglas, that he has not

actually asked them why they have not come and asked us for the money. 1215

The President: Hon. Member, do you have a supplementary question?

Mr Karran: Yes. Thanking the Shirveishagh now, and hopefully, as the union asked me to put

the Question down because they cannot get any dialogue as far as this – I had better be polite 1220

about it – situation… I thank the Minister for his reply, and maybe now we will actually get a

sensible dialogue in his Department and some consistency throughout his employees.

The President: I do not think there is a need to reply, sir. (Interjections)

1225

The Minister: Madam President, I think there is a need to reply.

Madam President, it is not my Department that is having the difficulties. I think this refers back

to the Chief Minister’s previous answer: Unite are not doing their job. All they have to do is come

to the Department – the door is open. There are no difficulties within my Department. He should

ask his union colleagues to come in and do what they are supposed to and what their union 1230

members are paying their representatives to do.

The President: We are becoming repetitious, Hon. Members. We will move on to –

Mr Karran: A final supplementary. 1235

The President: We are becoming repetitious, Hon. Members. We will move on to –

Mr Karran: A final supplementary.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Local farming community

Livestock losses; proposed Government support

15. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and

Agriculture:

What the estimated total number of livestock losses suffered by the local farmers following the

snowfall in March is; and what steps his Department is now taking to assist the farming

community in this respect?


_________________________________________________________________

1157 T130

16. The Hon. Member for Rushen (Mr Skelly) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and

Agriculture:

If he will make a statement on the level of proposed Government financial and other support to

be provided to the farming community after the recent snow storm?

The President: We will move on, Hon. Member, to Questions 15 and 16. As these two 1240

Questions are rather similar, the Minister has requested that he answers them together. If that is

agreeable by the Members who pose the Questions, I would invite them to put their Questions.

The Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan.

Mr Cannan: Thank you, Madam President. 1245


The President: And the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly.

Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1250

That is acceptable to me too.

The President: Minister to reply to Questions 15 and 16.

(The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture) Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, 1255

Eaghtyrane.

The recent snowfall occurred at possibly the busiest time of the year for livestock farmers

during the lambing and calving period. Losses of livestock have been significant. The Department

is in the process of collating figures, though it will take some time for the receding snow to expose

all the dead stock and our estimates of losses as a result of the snowfall… initial estimates, 1260

anyway, were 200 adult cattle and 8,000 sheep.

During the period between 25th March and 12th April, the Department of Infrastructure has

collected 451 cattle and calves and 7,663 sheep and lambs. Further associated losses are also

inevitable. Animals weakened by the snow may not recover, rear their young, or may abort their

lambs or calves that they are currently carrying, and we expect this week there will be further 1265

collections relating to the snow loss which may well result in our original estimate for losses being

exceeded.

Assuming our projections are accurate, we currently estimate that this would mean

replacement costs for livestock at around £1 million and the effect on farm incomes as a result of

the loss of livestock would be in the region of £750,000. Associated losses, such as damage to 1270

buildings and fences have not yet been considered in detail. The majority of these financial losses

will, of course, be borne by farmers; nevertheless, I believe it is appropriate for Government to

provide assistance to those most severely affected by this tragic snow event.

During the event and in its immediate aftermath, my Department undertook a range of

measures to assist the farming industry. Some key actions of note include that we introduced a 1275

temporary derogation for on-farm disposal of fallen stock in certain circumstances, and farmers

who wish to use this facility have to communicate with the Department and have to have clear

permissions, and only in certain exceptional circumstances will this be allowed.

We operated an emergency helpline which took calls from farmers requesting help and

numerous offers of help from the public were received, matching offers and needs wherever was 1280

possible. The helpline took over 21 requests for help and over 140 offers of help were received.

The helpline remained operational throughout the Easter weekend, staffed voluntarily by an officer

of the Department, and I am most grateful to her for that.

We worked closely with the Manx National Farmers’ Union to co-ordinate requests for and

offers of help and visited vulnerable farms to provide practical help and advice. As the situation 1285

evolved, the help required changed from search and rescue to sourcing and transporting livestock

feed.

The scheduled Countryside Care Scheme payments that were due to be paid towards the end of

this month were brought forward to help with expected farmers’ cashflow problems associated

with addressing severe weather, distributing around about £1.7 million around six weeks earlier 1290

than normal.

Department staff were deployed variously, assisting farmers in locating livestock, clearing

routes and transporting feed. Much commitment was out of hours and I should record my thanks,

and I hope Members will join with me in that, to my Department staff, but also all the other


_________________________________________________________________

1158 T130

Government Departments and indeed the huge amount of support we received from the general 1295

public. (Members: Hear, hear.)

We also worked closely with the Department of Infrastructure’s animal collection team about

the collection of increased numbers of fallen stock due to snow, and the Department readily agreed

to waive the collection fees, which again was hugely appreciated by the agricultural community. I

think particular praise should go out to the staff who operate that collection service (Members: 1300

Hear, hear.) for the enormously difficult role that they have had to fulfil.

Looking to the future, we are consulting with the industry to establish the most effective way

to assist farmers with the limited resources that are available to us. We are working with the

industry and listening carefully to what they are saying. Indeed, Tynwald permitted, I would hope

to be talking to the industry again tomorrow morning, but obviously that depends on how long we 1305

debate, this afternoon, the various Items.

We will provide business support to assist farmers in reviewing their options and developing

plans accordingly. It is likely that the Department will introduce support for farmers to restock

with appropriate replacement animals where they have been significantly affected by livestock

losses due to the extreme weather and those animals were uninsured. Assistance could be provided 1310

in the form of low-interest or no-interest loans from the Agricultural Development Fund.

We will be reversing the current policy which has excluded boundary fencing from the Farm

and Horticultural Improvement Scheme for those areas where fencing has been damaged by the

snow and we will explore how else the Farm and Horticultural Improvement Scheme could be

used to help farmers respond to the situation. I hope to be announcing something on this later in 1315

the week.

We fully understand that we will need to be pragmatic in our interpretation of the cross-

compliance measures required for the Countryside Care Scheme and some of our livestock-related

legislation as well. We will have to operate pragmatically for a period after this incident.

We understand there are likely to be significant impacts on the Meat Plant’s throughput due to 1320

the reduced stock numbers and increased breeding retentions, and we accept that there will be

implications for the subvention that we have been negotiating with the Meat Plant in recent

months. I will explore options with Isle of Meats as to how we can assist them to deliver a

competitive return to farmers, thereby protecting throughput and providing an important positive

engagement to the industry in this difficult period. 1325

In summary, Eaghtyrane, my Department is still evaluating the situation. I am committed to

providing much-needed assistance to those affected. Much has been and continues to be done;

however, more will be required to assist our livestock farmers through the aftermath of this

catastrophic weather event.

1330

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Cannan.


I would like to acknowledge that the Minister and his Department and the Council of Ministers

have, in general, reacted positively to this disaster, and obviously steps like bringing forward the 1335

Countryside Care payment scheme and the free collection of carcasses are obviously positive

moves and I am sure were welcomed in the farming community.

I am concerned, in terms of helping and supporting farmers now through this process and into

the future with restocking, that we are going to get caught up in a mass of technical arguments

around insurance and legalities and how and who should be supported. Would he agree with me 1340

that we need to find a simple, clear solution to this, and that probably the simplest method is to

make a payment based on headage losses, which will help both financially now and for the future

in terms of restocking?

Will he also agree with me that this whole matter has brought the agricultural community and

business very much into the spotlight, and will he support me in bringing forward a motion to next 1345

month’s Tynwald for a full debate, both on agriculture and particularly the Countryside Care

Scheme, its practicalities and its successes?

The President: Quite a few questions there, Hon. Member. Minister to reply.

1350

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.

I do thank the Hon. Member for his words of support and indeed the actions that he personally

took as well, which I am aware of.

I think that if the Hon. Member wishes the Department to engage in a full debate on

agricultural policy next month, then quite frankly we will not have the time to do all the things that 1355


_________________________________________________________________

1159 T130

we need to do in terms of directly supporting farmers. I am always happy to debate agricultural

policy and if he has got several days that he can set aside for that, I would be more than happy to

do so; but I would ask that that debate be delayed at least until June or July, rather than in May

when we are still trying to work up schemes and trying to get the direct support that farmers need

in the immediate future. 1360

As far as a headage loss payment scheme, at this stage, again, it is too early to say exactly what

we should and should not do, although I have to say I am very much aware, as a farmer’s son

myself, that farming is a business in which you expect peaks and troughs. You expect good years

and bad years; you expect good weather and you expect bad weather. It would, in my view, not be

appropriate for us to fully compensate absolutely everybody who has suffered as a result of these 1365

weather-related events, and to do so would be to take all the risk out of the agricultural industry

and I do not believe that that is appropriate… added to which, the whole purpose of the

Countryside Care Scheme is to act as a buffer so that when you have extreme events the peaks and

troughs can be levelled out by way of that guaranteed payment.

So I do believe that there is a role for some form of direct support where farmers have suffered 1370

the most significant losses, but I think the industry seems to be coalescing around the idea of a

substantial loans-related support scheme with perhaps a smaller amount of support for direct losses

and maybe some support for the Meat Plant. Again, it is a bit too early to say yet, and this week

will probably see the bulk of the remaining dead animals uncovered and we will have a better

understanding by the end of the week as to the scale of the problem that we are trying to address. 1375

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Skelly.


I am sure we all sympathise with the farming community over this difficult period, and I 1380

certainly believe Government should offer some level of support, but can the Minister advise if he

has considered interest-free loans to allow the farmers to rebuild their stock?

Can the Minister also advise if farmers are eligible for insurance claims, like any other

business; and, if so, can he explain how this might impact Government’s financial support scheme

he proposes? 1385

The President: We have partly had an answer to that, but Minister.


Yes, I think I did answer in the original Answer, and indeed my supplementary answer, that we 1390

are very much looking at the idea of a loan scheme. I think interest free, or certainly low interest,

would certainly be a possibility there.

As far as insurance, the way this impacts on anything we try to do is that it complicates the

matter because inevitably there are some farmers who have some insurance which covers some

situations and other farmers who have insurance that covers other situations, but many of the 1395

snow-related events, because they are described as ‘an act of God’, will not be covered by

insurance and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify the level of the insurance payments

that would be required to cover such a unique event as we have just faced in terms of the snow.

The President: The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. 1400


The Hon. Minister just… my question was on insurance, and whilst he says it would be

impossible therefore to cover such an event, it could well be the fact that these events could well

recur in future years and would it not therefore be advisable for farmers to look at the possibility 1405

of finding insurance cover, because they may well need it?


The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1410

I do know that the Manx National Farmers’ Union obviously is very much supported by the

NFU Mutual Insurance and they are one of the key livestock insurers on the Island.

The union and the insurance company have been trying to discuss the insurance-related

matters, but in essence I was talking to… well, I have been talking to a variety of farmers in recent

weeks, as you would expect, and the level of insurance premium required is something like a third 1415

of the value of an animal just for normal circumstances. So if you were going to insure against a


_________________________________________________________________

1160 T130

one-off or a once-in-50-years circumstance, the chances are you are going to be having to pay

something like half the value of the animal or more on an annual basis, and that clearly makes no

economic sense whatsoever.

So I think farmers are in a very difficult position, and certainly, as a result of this event, 1420

perhaps we need to have discussions with some of the insurers to see whether more realistic and

reasonable terms can be reached, but with the current policies that are available, it is difficult to

see how much more most farmers could have done in terms of insurance.

The President: The Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle. 1425

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Madam President.

I would like to say to the Minister and his colleagues that I am very grateful on behalf of all the

agricultural community on the Island and an awful lot of my constituents who have received some

help to get over the problems they have experienced. 1430

I was very disappointed with his Answer, I have to say. The body language and the mention of

limited resources has not instilled me with any confidence that those of my constituents who are –

The President: Could you come to a question, sir?

1435

Mr Quayle: Could the Minister explain how he sees some of my constituents, who are finding

buttes of, 80 at a time, dead sheep on the mountains and will be, effectively, wiped out in this

business… how will they be able to restock on a loan given to them on moneys that they are going

to get in the future? I just do not see how, from a business point of view, this is possible.

Would he agree with me that the events that have happened are, effectively, a perfect storm? 1440

The snows that were experienced in a certain part of the Island we have not seen since the 1960s,

and the timing of it, with heavily pregnant animals unable to handle the weather, has meant that

whilst all businesses have to accept a loss from time to time, problems do occur in any business

and 10%, 20%, it can happen to any business. But some of the businesses affected, through no

fault of their own, will be wiped out, and if the Department is just going to consider to loan the 1445

money that they were going to get anyway over a certain period of time, I do not see that as

practical help for those who are going to be absolutely wiped out.

Could the Minister also confirm whether his CoMin colleagues have offered him support for

those severe cases where people’s businesses have been wiped out? We, as Tynwald, do send

money off Island to places where people have been wiped out, and in some severe cases there are 1450

people who have lost virtually everything in this disaster.


The Minister: Gura mie eu. 1455

Certainly, in relation to the last point, we give to people who have lost their homes, lost their

livelihoods, lost their children, lost loved ones etc, up to £50,000 a month in terms of emergency

aid. If that is the comparison that the Hon. Member is making, then it is an interesting one.

I am disappointed, really, having said two or three times now exactly the sort of nature of the

problem and the nature of the response the Department is trying to deliver, that I have not been 1460

perhaps as clear in my Answer as the Hon. Member would have wished, so I will try and be

absolutely clear this time.

I see three elements to the support package. One, which is the element which the farming

community seems most generally supportive of, would be a loans scheme, and I would imagine

that would deal with a substantial part of the losses that we are talking about. Another element 1465

would be supporting the Meat Plant, which inevitably is going to be suffering this year as a result

of the reduced throughput. The other element of the scheme – and I am happy to acknowledge

maybe I have not been as forthcoming on this point as I could have been… The other element,

which I have mentioned, is that we will have to have some direct emergency support for the

farmers who have been most severely affected. So that is there, and apologies to the Hon. Member 1470

if I have not managed to make that as clear as I would need to.

Certainly I have had a general level of support from the Council of Ministers for some form of

support for the snow issue, but until I have been able to fully understand the problem – even at this

stage, we do not know yet absolutely the full figures – I feel it is premature for me to ask for

detailed support from the Council of Ministers. I am hopeful that I will get that support when I am 1475

in a better position to ask for it, and certainly the general view that I have had back from Council

is Council is keen to support.


_________________________________________________________________

1161 T130

As far as the perfect storm, that is absolutely correct. It is the worst snow-related weather event

we have had in 50 years, but 50 years ago the bad snow came at a time that was reasonable for

farmers to cope with. This particular problem with this event is it happening at a time when most 1480

livestock was at probably its weakest condition generally, because it is coming towards the end of

winter. We had a particularly bad year last year, which meant that animals went into the winter in

a poor condition anyway, and farmers did not have a lot of fodder taken because of the poor

summer that we had, and it has occurred in the most busy and most difficult time of year in terms

of lambing and calving. So it could not have been any worse. I do not think anyone could have 1485

invented a worse scenario for this.

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

Mr Downie: Thank you, Madam President. 1490

Obviously, I think when the Minister comes back he will get some support in this Court, but I

would just like to ask the Minister if he is aware yet of what our counterparts in Northern Ireland

are doing, where there was substantial loss of animals there and places like the Isle of Skye, which

had a significant loss, south-west Scotland and Cumbria? It would be interesting to see if those

regions are going to be supported by the UK and Northern Ireland authorities. 1495

I would also just like to ask him for his view: not only have animals been lost, but could he

confirm to me that there is now a shortage of quality feedstock on the Isle of Man, and farmers are

having to pay a premium for that just to keep alive what they got left until the better weather

comes.

Finally, I just want him to advise the Court today… Will he concur that we need to be careful 1500

what we do, because we do not want to affect our relationship with the Common Agricultural

Policy and the rules that apply there? But I am sure, given the talent of officers in his Department

he will come up with a scheme that will work well, and I will be supporting him.



I think those final comments are the ones that are most telling in this. We have an enormously

difficult job. Even if we had all money that we needed and there was no problem whatsoever in

terms of getting support – and certainly I am heartened by the amount of support that I have been 1510

hearing today – we have then the minefield of treading through our international obligations,

particularly under Protocol 3 in relationship with the EU and also World Trade Organisation rules

in terms of what we can and what we cannot support.

It is not just a simple matter of devising a scheme and throwing the money at it, as we have

also got to make sure that we have covered all that international aspect; and it is not easy, I fully 1515

agree.

The shortage of feed, yes, I have already described the problem that we had up to the snow

event, but here we are in the middle of April and I look around fields, desperately looking for

some green grass somewhere, and there is still little, if any, sign of the grass growing and any sort

of healthy grassland scene, which again is a big concern. At least if we had had some reasonable 1520

spring weather that allowed the grass to grow there would be the prospect of farmers making a

reasonable fist of things, but it is difficult.

Yes, indeed, there is a shortage of feed on the Island at the moment. Farmers can access that

food, but clearly they need to know that they have got a livelihood to carry on with, and in some

cases it must be a very difficult decision for them to make. 1525

As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I think that is probably the best comparison – England,

Wales and Scotland have been relatively unaffected, comparatively speaking – as Northern Ireland

has lost something like 20,000 stock, which represents round about 2% of their breeding flock. We

fear that our losses could be up to 10% of our breeding flock, which is obviously a significant

amount of losses. 1530

Northern Ireland has announced a headline figure of in the region of £5 million to assist with

the losses of their 20,000 livestock. That is the level of support they are talking about, but that

will, I am assuming, include clearing snow, it will include animal collections and a variety of other

associated issues.

So that is the situation. As I say, Scotland have given a little bit more support than England and 1535

Wales. England and Wales have given fairly limited support generally to their livestock farmers.

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Skelly.


_________________________________________________________________

1162 T130

Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1540

Can the Minister advise what impact this loss of livestock will have on the Meat Plant’s

viability; and given the Countryside Care Scheme has no production element, is he satisfied

farmers are suitably incentivised to rebuild their livestock?




This will have an impact on the Meat Plant; there is no doubt that it will have an impact on the 1550

Meat Plant.

One of the aspects of the Countryside Care Scheme, which I think certainly a number of the

longer-serving farmers are perhaps struggling to grapple with at the moment, is that we are trying

to move from two, possibly three, generations’-worth of farmers who have been used to being

supported directly for production to a totally new system and a totally new culture, which is that 1555

farmers are supported most directly by the marketplace.

As a result of the change to single farm payment in Europe, we have seen massive increases in

livestock prices and a general reduction in production, and that reduction in production has led to

the increase in livestock prices, because farmers are now in a position where they do not have to

supply a marketplace unless that marketplace is prepared to pay the required money to deliver 1560

them the costs of production.

That is quite an important change-around. It is really important that we recognise that that is a

big cultural change for farmers. That is why we set aside £5 million in the Agricultural

Development Fund when the Countryside Care Scheme was introduced. It is why, back in 2008

when we introduced the Scheme, I made absolutely clear that we needed this Fund and we were 1565

needing to spend several hundred thousand, if not millions of pounds, to support the Meat Plant

through this transition period.

Back in 2008, sadly, I could not have predicted that we were going to have one of the worst

years on record in terms of productivity, because of rain followed by the worst snow event for 50

years, so we were already going to have a problem in terms of throughput at the Meat Plant this 1570

year, prior to all these weather problems. We had ideas in place that were going to help resolve

that.

The Meat Plant, over the course of the last two or three years, as a result of the Countryside

Care Scheme, has become massively more efficient in processing animals, but sadly the cost of

processing is now going to be spread over considerably fewer animals: firstly, as a result of the 1575

very poor weather we have had over the last 12 months; secondly, as a result of strong store prices

in the UK, which has resulted in some farmers choosing to ship their animals out; and thirdly,

because of this tragic snow event.

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Cannan. 1580


Given the seriousness of the situation and all the problems that the Minister himself has

highlighted in the past 15 or 20 minutes or so around the farming and agricultural industry, can he

give us a date as to when we can expect to hear from him as to the first tranche of support that will 1585

be available for farmers, particularly given the urgency of the situation?



I am hopeful… well, I would say first of all, we already have announced a variety of things and

so it is not as though we are waiting for the first big announcement. We will announce as and

when schemes become available and funds become available. I am certainly hopeful that by the

end of the week we will have FIS – the Farm Improvement Scheme – open for boundary fencing,

and we should be able to open up, potentially, a loan scheme without direct Tynwald support 1595

because I think the Department already has the vires to do that. Any direct support through

emergency payment grants, or that sort of thing, I imagine would require Tynwald approval.

I think what we need to remember is that whilst there is some degree of urgency, equally the

main problem now that most farmers are facing is the loss of income. Most farmers I speak to say

that the problem is really going to be most severely felt when they get towards the end of the 1600


_________________________________________________________________

1163 T130

summer, when they basically do not have income as the animals that they would have fattened up

over the summer are no longer available to them, and so that is the time we are going to have the

most problems.

Certainly I am going to be working for the rest of this week with the farmers and the officers in

the Department, and I would hope that we would be in a position to go to Council of Ministers 1605

with a scheme, either towards the end… or with proposals by the end of April, early May, and

come to Tynwald as soon as we possibly can with whatever support packages that I need Tynwald

approval for.

The President: A final supplementary, Mr Hall. 1610

Mr Hall: Thank you, Madam President.

In terms of the actual possibility of aid from the state to farmers, I understand that, under EU

state aid rules, the maximum that is permitted is €7,500, which would be just a little over £6,000.

Can the Minister therefore confirm whether this is the case and whether that particular EU rule 1615

would apply to farmers in the Isle of Man with the possibility of providing aid to the farmers who

are in need of support and funding?

The President: Minister to reply.

1620


I have been involved with the Agriculture Department on and off now for 10 years – well, most

of the 10 years that I have been in politics – and every single one of the years that I have been in

that Department I have learned something new about agricultural support and how the EU deals

with it. 1625

There are a huge range of different exceptions to rules. There are a huge range of rules. There

are loads of different and competing opinions, depending on which country you happen to be in, as

to how they view the rules. So there may well be a specific rule which says what you just said, but

I am pretty confident I could find a whole raft of other rules that provide the exceptions and all the

rest of it. 1630

I think the important thing for me as well, and this is why we have already talked about a three-

pronged approach, I suppose, in terms of the main level of support… the loan bit is something we

can do without any worry whatsoever.

Direct support for the industry through the Meat Plant again is something we can do as part of

a restructuring package, and so that is pretty much straightforward. The compensation, direct 1635

compensation for the worst affected farmers, is the bit where we will have to do a little bit of

digging around to see where we can find exceptions and how we can actually deliver that.

Proposed sewage treatment plant

Field 3; details

17. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and

Agriculture:

If he will make a statement on the proposed use of field 3's proposal as a sewage treatment

plant and its proximity to the Food Park and how this may affect the investment made by

Government and businesses therein; how the Environmental Protection Unit has worked out

the acceptable level of suspended solids able to be discharged from the current sites and

proposed sites; and how the Environmental Protection Unit has worked out the current levels

of acceptable raw sewage discharge into the sea, separated into each sea outfall?



The President: The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to reply.


_________________________________________________________________

1164 T130

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture) Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu,

Eaghtyrane. 1645

In relation to the first part of the Question, I can inform the Court that field 3 is either zoned

for industrial use or is adjacent to land zoned for industrial use, so on that basis alone its use for a

sewage treatment works would seem feasible. The location of a sewage treatment plant in the

same vicinity of food processors is purely a perception issue, and would not pose a risk to food

hygiene or detriment to business. There are many examples of sewage treatment plants in the 1650

vicinity of food processors in the UK. So the simple answer is that there would be no effect on the

investment made in the Food Park.

In relation to the second part of the Question, the Environment Protection Unit has not set any

level of suspended solids from the Food Park site; any trade effluents from this site are discharged

to public foul sewer and are regulated by the Water Authority. Rainwater obviously is deemed to 1655

be uncontaminated.

However, in relation to the proposed sewage treatment plant at Peel, the level of suspended

solids would be at 60 milligrams per litre, which is the industry minimum treatment standard for

this parameter in the marine environment. The treatment plant proposed is likely to produce a level

much lower than this, in the order of 15 milligrams per litre. Similar treatment plants are already in 1660

place at Dalby, Patrick, Bride and Jurby, producing effluent suitable for discharging to low

dilution trout streams.

Turning to the last part of the Hon. Member's Question, when the Water Pollution Act was

fully enabled in 2005, the raw sewage discharge at Peel required a licence to reflect the existing

situation plus an allowance for development. The licence was issued based on information on the 1665

location of the discharge and the population connected from information provided by the then

Department of Transport Drainage Division. The population connected was amended in 2007 to

reflect the information received from the 2006 census, which showed the original figure to be

inaccurate.

Other than the main outfall discharging public foul sewage adjacent to the end of the 1670

breakwater, we have no records of any another sea outfall discharging raw sewage in Peel.

The President: Supplementary question, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply, it will help to reassure us, as 1675

far as the Item on the main Order Paper, as to whether we should invest this money, allowing for

the proposal of a sewerage plant being put so closely to the vicinity of a food park.

Could the Shirveishagh… and I do not expect him to have the answer here today, but how

much active bacteria is in a kilogram of suspended solids of effluent from the outflow, as far as

Meary Veg is concerned, allowing for the issue that we just recently had, with people raising 1680

concerns about the quality of beach levels as far as the Island is concerned?

If the Hon. Member has reassured this Hon. Court that there is not going to be a detrimental

effect as far as having the sewerage plant next to a food park or closely in the vicinity of the Food

Park, then I think it is something that we can all be reassured about. Will the Minister tell us

whether that has come from the people who actually operate the Food Park, and they are happy 1685

with this scenario?



You will not be too surprised to know that I do not know how many bacteria there are in every

litre of effluent discharged from Meary Veg, but what I do know is that I have not been made

aware of any reports of concern from my Environmental Protection Unit on that issue.

In relation to users of the Food Park, I think the best example, or the best answer I can give, is

that we know of, or we have personal experience within our Department of plants next to a 1695

creamery in Cornwall, a poultry slaughterhouse and packers in Shoprite… Sorry, it is not Shoprite,

in Shropshire (Laughter) – apologies to Shoprite – and a soft-fruit drink manufacturer in

Worcestershire. So we have got direct experience there of these things working and there being

absolutely no problem whatsoever. There are no issues with tainting or contamination that have

been ever reported. 1700

We have also been informed by the Water Authority that the treatment plant proposed in this

instance is totally enclosed, preventing rodent or bird access. So we have got as much assassurance

as we feel we need to crack on with the scheme.


_________________________________________________________________

1165 T130

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Quirk. 1705


Can I ask the Minister to clarify what his term would be as to how close the plant, or the

potential plant, is to the Food Park? Would he not agree it is not next to the Food Park?

Also, can I ask, regarding when the Food Park hopefully will go through later on, maybe today, 1710

that the separation of the storm from the sewer will add to the enhancement of the beach in Peel?



Yes, it is not next to the Food Park in that it is not right alongside the Food Park. It is several

hundred yards… Am I allowed to use yards?

A Member: Three fields away. (Interjections)

1720

The Minister: How far?

A Member: Half a mile.

The Minister: Oh, half a mile. Any advance on half a mile? It is some distance away from the 1725

Food Park, and so it is certainly not next to it in that regard. Certainly the separation of foul and

rain water, storm water, will have a significant improvement in Peel, assuming that this Hon.

Court supports that motion later.

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Houghton. 1730


Will the Minister agree with me that the Hon. Member for Onchan putting this Question down

in the way that he has is abusing his position in this Hon. Court by protecting the vested interest of

his friend in this matter? 1735

The President: Hon. Member, I think that is an unreasonable statement. Members are entitled

to table Questions, and it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate Question.

Minister to reply.

1740


I think you have probably replied on my behalf.


1745

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that the individual where this Question came

from is an individual who has concerns about their partner's employment, and that is why this

Question is down? It is not the individual that the Hon. Member is talking about. (Interjections)

The President: Do you want to comment, Minister? 1750

The Minister: Yes. Gura mie eu.

I cannot agree with that because I have no idea why the Hon. Member asked the Question.

A Member: To put it down on record. (Interjections) 1755


_________________________________________________________________

1166 T130

Landlords and tenancies

Details of complaints received

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

Agriculture:

How many complaints regarding landlords and tenancies were received by his Department

during the last two years; and what the nature of these complaints was?

The President: Question 18, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk.



The President: The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to reply.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, 1765

Eaghtyrane.

I would like to thank the hon. questioner for the discussion we have had in advance of this

Question, and so I have been able to understand exactly what he is looking for.

The environmental health officers from the Environmental and Public Health Units investigate

complaints related to unsatisfactory housing matters, both in the public and private sector. They 1770

act as agents and authorised officers of the local authorities, as the principal Housing Acts and

Regulations are the responsibility of local authorities to enforce.

Complaints are not received directly related to landlords and tenancies, per se, as neither come

within the remit of my Department or that of the local authorities to enforce. Complaints that are

made relate to the structural integrity, disrepair, dampness, amenity or overcrowding of individual 1775

houses or flats, and not directly about the landlords or the tenancies.

The numbers of complaints related to such matters which have been received in the last 24

months are as follows: from 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012, a total of 317 housing complaints,

137 of which were in Douglas, 23 in Onchan and 157 elsewhere – the total complaints specific to

flats is 103, of which 74 were in Douglas, three in Onchan and 26 elsewhere; from 1st April 2012 1780

to 31st March 2013, the total housing complaints were 392, 149 in Douglas, 16 in Onchan and 227

elsewhere, and the total complaints specific to flats were 115, of which 78 were in Douglas, one in

Onchan and 36 elsewhere.

Gura mie eu.

1785

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Quirk.


I am grateful to the Minister for giving us that information, although it was a bit fast and I did

not get it all down. 1790

Would the Minister not agree with me, then, that according to the figures as I have jotted them

down quickly there, the issue is reducing?

Mrs Cannell: No.

1795

Mr Quirk: No? According to the figures he gave to me, 317 to 92. (Interjections)



Apologies if I did not… I am often accused of speaking too slowly, (Laughter and

interjections) but I will try and lengthen the Answer a bit for you.

The President: Could I suggest that the Minister might advise the Member to consider a

Written Question when there is a lot of detail involved? 1805

The Minister: Yes, or I could summarise to say that two years ago it was 317 housing

complaints and 103 flat-related complaints, and last year it was 392, an increase of –


_________________________________________________________________

1167 T130

Mr Braidwood: Seventy-five. 1810

The Minister: Seventy-five – thank you, Member for Treasury (Laughter) – housing

complaints; and 115, an increase of 12, in relation to flats.


I thank the Minister for being a lot slower, as I missed the 300, but never mind.

Can I just ask the Minister, if I am allowed a supplementary, would the Minister not agree with

me on the overall number of places or premises that they look after, that his environmental officers

look after and local authority members or local authority departments have to cover is less than

about 2% to 3%? That is not a big issue in your Department? 1820


The Minister: Gura mie eu.

Certainly in relation to direct complaints, I would have thought that the numbers that we are 1825

talking about are quite high. I have not come armed with the number of houses that there are on

the Island, but we are looking at 500 complaints a year and we have got… what, 40,000 or 50,000

properties? I do not know what the figure would be. That is quite a high number, really, that have

got as far as a direct complaint.

There will be plenty of other houses which we know of through the House Condition Survey 1830

that the Department undertook five years ago, and we are overdue another one… that a lot of the

housing stock that has been built in the Isle of Man is in very, very poor condition. So I think it is

an issue that I personally feel we should be concerned about.

Certainly as Environment Minister, in terms of energy efficiency of homes, this is quite a big

issue and it is something that I would want to refer to, hopefully, in a debate coming to a Court 1835

near you.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mrs Cannell.

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Madam President. 1840

Would the Minister not agree with me that, whilst the numbers on paper may appear relatively

low when one compares the size of the Island, the population and the amount of properties that we

have, in fact what the Hon. Member for Onchan is omitting, or not considering in all of this, is the

many, many hours of investigation work, testing and enforcement procedures that are involved in

pursuing those complaints and coming to a satisfactory conclusion at the end? 1845



I would agree with most of that, but I actually believe that 1% a year of the houses on the 1850

Island being complained about is an unacceptable level. This is a concern. Bearing in mind that the

majority of the housing built since 1970 is probably in reasonably good nick, we are talking about

a fairly large number of some of the older properties, percentage wise, that are in a poor condition.

Other than that, I would wholly agree with the Hon. Member for Douglas East.

1855

The President: A final supplementary, Mr Quirk.


Can I just say thank you to the Minister for that. I just wonder about the House Condition

Survey, and I was going to mention that, but is it not about time, really, that we did a House 1860

Condition Survey and put those figures out there to find out? That is the whole housing stock of

the Isle of Man, not just the ones that are let out.

Finally, could I just ask – and the second part of that would be if the Minister has not got the

figures, could he let us have copies – how many prohibition notices or how many closing orders

the Department has been giving out over the last couple of years? 1865

The President: Minister, I am sure you have not got that information to hand.


_________________________________________________________________

1168 T130


I have not got that information and I am not even sure that my Department would have that 1870

information, but certainly I will look into that and see what I can do for the Hon. Member.

The House Condition Survey is something that, within the Department, we recognise is

overdue; however, we also recognise that we do not have as much money as we used to have. We

are looking at a substantial cut to our budget in the next three years and it will be a case of how we

can manage to afford to do all the things that are now lining up for us to do. 1875

HEALTH

Tuberculosis

Information and protection offered

19. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Health:

What measures his Department is taking to inform and protect the general public from

tuberculosis?



The President: The Minister for Health to reply. 1880

The Minister for Health (Mr Anderson): Madam President, the risk of tuberculosis – or TB,

as I will refer to it in my Answer – among the general public in the Isle of Man is very low. The

following figures will provide an idea of the risk: in the past three years, there have been less than

five cases a year on average. 1885

The risk of TB is greater in people who have come from areas where TB is common – in

Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe. New entrants to the Isle of Man who do come from countries where

TB is common are notified to the Public Health Directorate and screened for TB and, depending

on the results of the screening, are offered BCG vaccination. All babies born to parents or

grandparents from countries with a high prevalence of TB are offered BCG vaccination. 1890

In the indigenous population, the groups who are at greater risk are older people, those with

immunity problems and those long-term travellers to high-prevalence areas. GPs are aware of the

need to consider the possibility of TB in these groups.

If a GP suspects a person of having TB, they are referred to the Chest Clinic, where they are

investigated and, if found to have TB, treated accordingly under NICE guidelines. 1895

Short-term travel – that is two weeks’ holiday – to a country with high prevalence of TB does

not carry a significant risk, and there is no need for any vaccination. Some travellers who were

previously unvaccinated and those people under the age of 16 who are going to be living and

working in endemic countries for more than three months are offered BCG vaccination. BCG

vaccination is not recommended over the age of 35 and is not recommended more than once in a 1900

lifetime.

All healthcare workers from countries where TB is endemic are screened as part of the pre-

employment occupational health check-ups.

The President: Supplementary, Mr Karran. 1905

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply, would he be concerned

about the issue of antibiotic-resistant TB becoming a problem in the adjacent isle? Would he

consider whether we should be considering, with Work Permits, maybe having, as part of the fee,

that people need to have a medical, and maybe the potential employer having to pay for that – 1910

A Member: Who is going to pay for that?

Mr Karran: – as maybe one way of trying to slow down the effect that is becoming an

increased problem in the adjacent island? 1915


_________________________________________________________________

1169 T130


The Minister: Madam President, I am not aware of the antibiotic resistance the Hon. Member

refers to in the adjacent isles; however, I am sure my Public Health Directorate are keeping a close 1920

eye on it.

Noble’s Hospital

Possible privatisation of services; details

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

If he will make a statement on a letter sent to all staff at Noble’s Hospital regarding the

possible privatisation of services; and what services are likely to be affected?

The President: Question 20, 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. 1925

The President: The Minister for Health to reply.

The Minister for Health (Mr Anderson): Madam President, I would like to correct certain

elements of the Hon. Member’s Question. The letter to which he refers was not sent to all Noble’s 1930

staff, nor does it relate, in isolation, to the possible privatisation of services. The letter was sent to

the managers and staff members of those services which the Department will be examining as part

of the Government-wide Scope of Government review process, which could include certain staff

members of Ramsey District Cottage Hospital and the Mental Health Service.

As the Hon. Member will recall from the January sitting of this Hon. Court when the Council 1935

of Ministers proposals were debated and approved, a range of Government services are being

examined to establish what scope might exist for them to be delivered by alternative means.

Among those alternative means, privatisation is included, but it should be particularly noted that

there are many other alternatives.

The purpose of the letter issued by the Department’s Chief Executive was to invite relevant 1940

staff and union officials to a presentation to explain the background to the Scope of Government

initiative, its purposes and the procedure that will now follow.

In terms of the services that are being subject to the Scope of Government analysis process

within the Department, these are laundry; catering; portering; security; cleaning; housekeeping;

switchboard; accommodation; stores; volunteers co-ordination; sterile services; management 1945

information and technology; occupational health; corporate services team; education and training,

including the library; medical records; medical secretaries; prison healthcare; and patient transfers.

The President: A supplementary question, Mr Henderson.

1950


I thank the Shirveishagh for his frank and open Answer. Could he confirm for me that his

Department will continue to liaise fully and openly with staff so affected, and certainly with the

staff sides themselves, so that information is disseminated in a timely fashion?

1955


The Minister: Yes, I would like to confirm that the Department will work very closely with

the staff and with the unions in developing as we go forward in this process, and that was made

very clear to them in the presentation that has now taken place. 1960

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


_________________________________________________________________

1170 T130


Just on that point, Minister, if I could just ask regarding the presentations that have now taken 1965

place, what was the general feeling of the workforce to the senior officers? Are they engaging with

the staff and are the staff appreciating an early consultation?


1970

The Minister: It is a job for me to gauge, Madam President, what individuals made of the

presentation, but I think, from the questions that ensued, that they now have a deeper

understanding of the process that we are going through and hopefully will fully engage in that

process.

Plans to contract out services

Consultation with unions

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

Whether his Department is planning to contract out services and what they may be; to what

extent his Department consulted with relevant unions before sending letters out to staff; and

how he will keep unions informed as to events?

The President: Question 21, the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson. 1975


Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my ennym. I beg to ask the Question in my name.

The President: Minister for Health to reply. 1980

The Minister for Health (Mr Anderson): Madam President, the Department is not planning

to contract out services. What it is doing is acquitting its obligations to this Hon. Court, in terms of

addressing the requirements of the Scope of Government review process, to examine services and

consider that they may be delivered in an alternative way. This activity is not confined to the 1985

Department of Health and has been undertaken throughout the whole of Government.

Recent letters sent to certain staff members were invitations to attend briefings about this

process. That invitation was extended to union officials and they attended the briefing sessions in

question. Union officials have indicated to me personally that they found the briefings to be

informative and helpful. Those unions have also been assured that the process going forward will 1990

be fully communicated and discussed with them.

Health Service manual workers

Proposal to privatise; value for money

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

In view of the proposals to privatise the cleaners and other manual workers, whether he will

review management and the whole structure of the Health Service to get value for money?



1995

The President: The Minister for Health to reply.

The Minister for Health (Mr Anderson): Thank you, Madam President.

The Department has no proposals to privatise cleaning or other services provided by manual

workers, and consequently the Hon. Member’s Question runs the risk of causing confusion and 2000

concern.


_________________________________________________________________

1171 T130

What is being undertaken, satisfying the obligation that my Department, along with the rest of

Government has to this Hon. Court, is an analysis of certain services according to the Scope of

Government review process. The Hon. Member will recall that these matters were debated at

length in this Court in January, where they enjoyed the support of the Hon. Member. 2005

In terms of reviewing managerial posts, its most senior posts in the Department’s structure –

that is the non-medical or clinical structure – were all independently reviewed recently, at my

instigation, in the latter part of 2011. More widely, the Hon. Member will recall that there have

been significant structural revisions as a result of the reviews at Noble’s Hospital and in many

other areas of the healthcare delivery. This continual process of analysis will not come to an end 2010

and I consider the Scope of Government process complements this work.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply, but who did do the review? 2015

Does the Department feel that there is a need to develop more of a teamwork, as far as getting all

sections of employees together in order that we can actually get a sensible dialogue as far as where

there are wastes, like there was at the public meeting that I was asked to attend by the staff at

Noble’s where the Chief Executive was?

2020


The Minister: Madam President, I cannot recall the individual company that did the review. It

was a private organisation outside of Government – completely outside of Government – which

did the review and basically came back to say the change that the Department had made to its 2025

managerial structure made it fit for purpose.

In relation to teamwork, I agree with the Hon. Member, it is very important that we have

teamwork from the top to the bottom and from the bottom to the top. I would encourage members

of our staff who have problems to engage with their managers to make sure we can make

improvements where they can see waste within the organisation. 2030

The President: Supplementary, Mr Quirk.


If I could just ask the Minister… I just wondered if he knew how many unions were actually 2035

involved and whether the Department itself, with the list he read out and the letter that we had

received as well, was there any priority or is there a top one to ten?


2040

The Minister: I am not sure of the exact number of the unions involved. I know one particular

union could not make the dates that we sent out in our letter of invitation; however, an invitation

was given by the Chief Executive to that union to make an individual presentation and I am not

sure if that has been taken up yet.

In relation to the priority of these areas, there are 18 areas to be explored and quite a tight 2045

timescale, but I think they are all to be reviewed initially before the end of June.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Ronan.

Mr Ronan: Thank you, Madam President. 2050

Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the most cost-effective and efficient method of

delivery of ancillary services at the Hospital will be followed to ensure that the highest possible

standards of front-line nursing and medical care can be achieved?


The Minister: Obviously, Madam President, standards are crucial in healthcare delivery. It is

not just what is the cheapest being the best. It has to be a combination, not just value for money,

and to make sure that the high standards that we presently enjoy in the Health Service are

continually delivered. 2060


_________________________________________________________________

1172 T130

The President: A supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh son Slaynt, the Minister for Health, consider allowing

the publication of this Report that is going through internal review, or allow Hon. Members to be 2065

able to read it on a confidential basis in order to be reassured that he actually has got what is

required, as a former Member for Health?


2070

The Minister: This document was commissioned by me to satisfy me, as Minister for Health,

that the management structure was fit for purpose, and that was the reason we had it

commissioned. I believe it confirms that what we have got in place is now exactly what we need.

The Hon. member makes a request for that to be disseminated to Hon. Members, but I think it is

an internal working document and I will be keeping it that way. 2075


Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that, whilst in the dizzy heights of being a

Minister, sometimes it might be better that people who have actually been there in the past and 2080

seen things, who have not been Ministers… so that we could actually maybe allay our own fears

that we might find that we have ended up spending large amounts of money on a document that is

not actually hitting the points that need to be addressed?

Would the Shirveishagh just tell us, if he is not prepared to release this document on a

confidential basis, whether he can actually tell us who actually put the terms of reference together, 2085

who helped him, as far as that is concerned, because that will have a severe effect on whether this

document has real credibility.


2090

The Minister: I will consider the Hon. Member’s request and get back to him, Madam

President. I might consider releasing the report to be read in my office by individuals who want to

do that.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft. 2095


Would the Minister kindly circulate, when he has time to put it together, the revised structure,

so that we can actually see the structure if we cannot see the document?

2100


The Minister: The structure that the independent agency considered of the Health Service

reaffirmed the structure that was in place was fit for purpose, so there have not been any

significant changes as a result. 2105

The President: Question 22, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. (Interjections)

A Member: We have just done that one!

2110

The President: Sorry? (Interjections)

I am sorry, Hon. Members. Yes, the remaining Questions are for Written Answer.

Announcement of Royal Assent

The President: I can announce that Royal Assent has been given to the Children and Young

Persons (Amendment) Act 2013.


_________________________________________________________________

1173 T130

Questions for Written Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

MEA

Details of Government-owned bonds

23. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Hall) to ask the Chief Minister:

What MEA bonds the Government owns; and if he will make a statement?

Answer: The Isle of Man Government has no holdings of bonds issued in respect of the Manx 2115

Electricity Authority. Treasury’s appointed investment managers have discretion for stock

selection of the portfolios providing they operate within investment mandates issued by Treasury.

These investment mandates do not refer specifically to the Manx Electricity Authority bonds.

I do not propose to make a statement at this point.

TREASURY


Account details


If he will provide details of the movement on the Media Development Fund between June 2012

and 1st April 2013 together with a breakdown of the opening and closing balances?

Answer: The detailed Government accounts for the 2012-13 financial year (‘the Light Blue 2120

Book’) will be available to Hon. Members at the May 2013 sitting of Tynwald and will include

details of the opening and closing balance of the Media Development Fund for the year. At the

time of the publication of the accounts I will be in a position to circulate to Hon. Members the

details of movements in that Fund requested by the Hon. Member between June 2012 and April

2013. 2125

Departments’ settlement payments

Details


How many settlement payments were made which contained confidentiality clauses in each of

the last five years broken down by Department and the total amount paid by each Department?

Answer: The Hon Member for Douglas South has advised my office that the parameters of

this Question extend to any settlement payment, be it to an employee, a customer, a patient, a

service provider etc. These parameters are very wide and it would take an inordinate amount of

time and be of significant cost to Government to collate what may not be appropriately focussed

research. 2130

The aim of Treasury is to be helpful in responding to all enquiries and undertake detailed

research. The Question, as presently drafted, is difficult to properly answer in an efficient and

effective manner and I would be grateful if the Hon Member would provide more detailed

guidance on the specific issue which has prompted it. I would be pleased to discuss the issue with

her further in order to provide sufficient clarity to enable an answer to be efficiently prepared for 2135

the benefit of the taxpayer.


_________________________________________________________________

1174 T130

SOCIAL CARE

Glenside, Victoria Road, Douglas

Current works; reason and costs

26. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Houghton) to ask the Minister for Social Care:

(a) What the reason is for the fencing and other works being carried out at Glenside, Victoria

Road, Douglas; and

(b) what the costs are in respect of each item of works?

Answer: The purpose of the fencing is to prevent unwanted traffic from entering the premises.

The Crime Prevention Officer advised that the location represents a potential risk for unauthorised

use and advised that we should take measures to prevent public access. This is particularly the case

given the proximity of the site to the TT course. 2140

There is also a risk that the site could be used for fly tipping and consequently measures are

needed to discourage such activities.

The neighbours who are affected by the fencing were consulted with and have expressed their

appreciation for the work done as it also safeguards their property.

The cost of the fencing and gates is in the region of £4,500. 2145

There has not been any other work carried out on the premises. There has been a lot of activity

isolating services to make the building safe and retrieving the furniture for re-use. That may have

given the impression of ‘building work’ activity but there has not been any such work carried out.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Dairy herd

Size; reason for decrease


Agriculture:

What the size of the dairy herd in 2004 was; what the size is now; and why the herd is

decreasing?

Answer: The size of the dairy herd declared in the 2004 agricultural census was 6,924 animals.

The equivalent census data is not available for 2012. However, the size of the dairy herd 2150

extrapolated from the Department’s bovine identification and tracing system (BITS) establishes

the dairy herd in 2012 at 5,018 animals.

The size of the national herd has gradually declined during the period since 2000,

following a previous period of expansion during the 1990s. There will be a range of

reasons, both social and economic, which have resulted in a reduction in the number of 2155

herds and cattle, including increasing yield per cow. Table 27A

Trend in Isle of Man dairy herd size

Source DAFA Agricultural Census 1996-2010. DAFA Bovine identification and Tracing System (BITS) 2011-2012)


_________________________________________________________________

1175 T130

There is some indication in Table 27A above, that the rate of reduction in herd size slowed a

little during the period of debate about the likely introduction of the Countryside Care Scheme 2160

(2006-08) and a corresponding period of increased rate of reduction immediately afterwards

(2008-09); however, the more recent decline appears to have slowed significantly. This may

reflect the increase in milk price during 2008-09, see Table 2 below.

Dairying is a full-time and demanding capital intensive business, which has become

increasingly specialised. All dairy farmers will inevitably face a challenge at some stage of 2165

whether to reinvest in the enterprise or exit dairying either to retire or diversify in favour of an

alternative agricultural enterprise.

In turn the decision to invest in dairy farming will be influenced by a number of factors,

including the ability to expand, the age of the farmer, whether the business has a successor,

confidence in future returns and life style choice. 2170

DEFA operates a Farm and Horticultural Improvement Scheme which provides grants of up to

50%, with enhanced rates for younger farmers. The scheme is intended to assist dairy and other

agricultural enterprises invests in capital projects and was re-opened six months ago, to help

stimulate investment which improves farm efficiency and provides jobs in the construction sector.

Two other important factors in dairy farmer commitment and investment decisions, are milk 2175

price and input costs; however the period of decline in cow numbers includes times with high and

low milk prices and high and low input costs, yet the trend has continued, indicating that other

factors such as age of farmer are important.

Returns and cost of production 2180

The cost of milk production can vary significantly, depending of the system employed and the

efficiency of its operation. DairyCo, the UK’s dairy industry producers’ body, stated in its

Management Costs report published in February 2013 that with good management, milk can be

produced efficiently from any of the systems identified (in its report) and at almost any scale of

production. The key determinant of dairy farm profit is total cost of production relative to total 2185

milk income, regardless of yield.

Between January 2003 and December 2012 the price paid by Isle of Man Creamery at the farm

gate increased from 19.78 pence per litre to 30.08 pence per litre; an increase of 52%. Assuming

an annual production of 6,000 litres per cow this gives a gross return per cow of £1,805 compared

with £1,187 in 2003, an increase of £618 per cow. 2190

Costs of production have also changed. The most significant variable cost of milk production is

feed and forage costs. DairyCo records an increase in the UK cost of High Energy Concentrate

over the same period from £133 per tonne to £268 and that scale of increase is likely to have been

the same for Manx producers. Assuming that for every litre of milk produced, 0.24kg of

concentrate is used, then concentrate costs will have increased on average by £219 per cow over 2195

the period. Fuel costs have also risen; red diesel in 2003 was 24ppl compared with 71ppl in 2012.

Nevertheless, fuel costs only make up a relatively minor element of the total cost of production.

The 2012 farming year was dominated by the weather and extremely wet conditions. This has

had a range of negative impacts for dairy farmers, including reduced milk yields, variable forage

quality and a general negative effect on livestock performance. 2200

Table 27B

Trend in Manx and UK farm gate milk price


_________________________________________________________________

1176 T130

DairyCo stated in its report regarding their 2012 dairy farmers’ intention survey that industry

leavers are much more likely to:

1. Be in older age groups: 12% of dairy farmers over the age of 65 intend to leave the 2205

industry, whereas none of the respondents under the age of 30 were planning on leaving.

2. Have smaller farms: 19% of those dairy farmers with a herd size of between 10 – 49 cows

and 12% of those producing less than 500,000 litres per annum are intending on leaving.

3. Not have a successor: only 21% of dairy farmers leaving the industry have a family

successor in place for the farm business. 2210

A copy of the survey is available from http://www.dairyco.org.uk/resources-library/market-

information/farmer-intentions/farmer-intentions-survey-2012/

Summary 2215 The UK research seems to correlate to our own situation, in that the decline in cow numbers

does not seem to be related simply to milk price, but may also be a reflection on the age of many

producers, plus in some cases smaller herds, often their lack of successors, all of which combine to

reduce confidence to re-invest in their businesses.

The Department expects to work with the industry to ensure new entrants have the ability to 2220

become established and to stimulate confidence to re-invest, for example, through the continuation

of the newly re-opened capital investment grant scheme. We have brought together the Food

Industry Advisory Committee, including representatives of the Manx National Farmers Union and

the Isle of Man Creamery, to explore other ways to stimulate a reliable, sustainable and self-reliant

dairy sector. 2225

We are very aware that the weather over the last year has created very difficult farming

conditions and this has further reduced farmer confidence and we are committed to working with

the industry to improve confidence. We welcome the recent moves by the IOM Creamery to

increase their farm gate milk price which is in keeping with the trend seen in the UK milk price.

Live beef cattle and sheep

Numbers exported; slaughtered on Island


Agriculture:

How many live beef cattle and sheep were exported in (a) 2006; and (b) 2012; and how many

animals were slaughtered on the Island in (i) 2006; (ii) 2007; (iii) 2008; (iv) 2009; (v) 2010;

(vi) 2011; and (vii) 2012?

Answer:

Part 1: Number of beef cattle and sheep exported live in (a) 2006; and (b) 2012;

Table 1: Livestock exported 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Beef cattle Store cattle

(Under 30 months) 124 393 1,157 584 530 1,369 1,029

Mature cattle (Over 30 months or

‘OTM’) 232 239 878 1,069 756 1,043 668

Cattle Total 356 632 2,035 1,653 1,286 2,412 1,697

Sheep

Ewes (over 12 months)

3,686 2,006 2,694 4,485 5,593 6,656 5,346

Lambs (under 12 months)

16 10 11 1,198 3,896 5,639 10,262

Sheep Total 3,702 2,016 2,705 5,683 9,489 12,295 15,608

Source: DEFA livestock export data

2230

http://www.dairyco.org.uk/resources-library/market-information/farmer-intentions/farmer-intentions-survey-2012/

http://www.dairyco.org.uk/resources-library/market-information/farmer-intentions/farmer-intentions-survey-2012/


_________________________________________________________________

1177 T130

Exports of beef cattle

To give a fuller picture, Table 1 provides details of exports of beef breed between 2006 and

2012. A significant proportion of the cattle exported has been over thirty months of age (OTM)

and will generally be destined for the lower value processed meat market. Following BSE, this age

of cattle had been banned from the human food chain until being allowed to re-enter in late 2005, 2235

so the market has been re-establishing during the period under scrutiny. Previously, the animals

had been culled here and destroyed.

The balance of the cattle exported are younger ‘store cattle’ which would otherwise have been

finished and slaughtered at the Meat Plant. In recent years store cattle exports have peaked in 2008

and 2011, which seems to show a correlation with: 2240

Significant events which effect producer confidence – 2008 and 2011 were the

periods of main debate about the Agricultural policy and Meatplant respectively.

Peaks in UK store cattle prices, which provide the main market competition for Manx

agriculture. 2245

Weather conditions: 2008 and 2012 were extremely wet years with fodder in short

supply and therefore high prices for alternative forages and cereals.

Graph 1 demonstrates that store cattle exports in 2012 have reduced by 30% compared to the

2011 level, which seems to indicate that Isle of Man Meats recent pricing policy introduced in

early 2012, has made significant progress in regaining market share, despite the wet year. 2250

Exports of Sheep

Graph 2 (below) shows combined exports of sheep and lamb have increased steadily in the last

few years. Exports of older sheep have increased moderately. These animals tend to be destined

for the processed meat or more specialist ethnic markets and are relatively low value and very low 2255

margin.

Export of Lamb has increased significantly since the phasing out of slaughter premiums. Much

of the UK’s sheep meat is exported to Europe and a weak pound has promoted an active export

market, creating a strong demand for livestock and intense competition between processors.

Recent higher feed prices and a difficult season will have also had an effect on farmers deciding 2260

on either finishing animals or selling as stores for finishing in the UK. New lamb markets in the

UK, where stock procurement is becoming increasingly competitive has also attracted lambs of a

lighter weight and lesser finish.


_________________________________________________________________

1178 T130

Part 2: Animals slaughtered in the Meat Plant on Island in (i) 2006; (ii) 2007; (iii) 2008 (iv) 2265

2009: and (v) 2012

Livestock slaughtering at the Meat Plant reached its lowest point for many years in 2011.

However, following a review and changes to the businesses approach and pricing, a modest

though re-assuring increase of almost 10%, has been achieved in 2012.

2270

Source Isle of Man Meats

Since the decoupling of agricultural subsidies across Europe in 2005 the size of national herds

and flocks have generally reduced as the food and farming industry adjust to signals provided by

the marketplace instead of product subsidies. There has also been consolidation within the supply

chain with fewer and larger meat plants. 2275

One consequence of this has been greater competition for livestock, as large meat plants

compete for supplies from a reduced pool of stock. Farm gate prices have risen significantly and

whilst many inputs have also risen, margins per animal have tended to improve.

A review of pig throughput in 2011 saw Isle of Man Meats make some significant changes to

its supply, reducing the number of pigs required, but at the same time increasing weights and 2280

profitability.

It is pleasing to see Isle of Man Meats has achieved growth in both market share of animals

grown on the Island and actual throughput during 2012, which is reflected in the accompanying

fall in live animals exported.

2285

Livestock price trends

Graph 4 (below) shows that during the period under review, the livestock prices, both on the

Island and in the UK have increased significantly. Between 2006 and 2012, the Manx lamb price


_________________________________________________________________

1179 T130

rose 128p/kg, a 56% increase, worth around £23 per animal and the Manx beef price rose 136p, a

73% increase, worth around £394 per animal. However, there is some evidence to suggest UK 2290

lamb has risen faster than local prices and this may be a factor in the increasing export numbers of

lamb.

Whilst much of this increase will have contributed to increased profits in normal years, it is

likely that given the very difficult weather over the last season and when combined with the

impact of rising costs of several inputs, most notably feed, profitability will have fallen this year. 2295

Graph 4: Trends in Manx and UK farm gate prices for beef and lamb

Conclusions

The current situation and the reasons for the trends in Meat Plant throughput and live export

numbers are complex, with a range of factors causing the recent changes and confidence being 2300

perceived to be a major factor. However, there is clear evidence of reductions in live exports and

increases in the Meat Plant throughput during the last year.

The difficult season over the last year will have significantly reduced livestock producers’

profitability and confidence, though at current prices, both are likely to improve, assuming this

season has been extreme. 2305

The Department is continuing to work closely with IOM Meats to ensure they continue their

good progress in regaining throughput of livestock which improves their margin and the

Department is currently establishing a joint project with DoI to refurbish the plant to extend its

working life, further improve its efficiency and reduce operating costs.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Chief Executives

Employment costs; contract terms

29. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What the employment costs are of each Chief Executive or equivalent officer of each town,

village and district authority; and what their terms of contract are?

Answer: As the Hon. Member for Onchan will appreciate, the Island’s local authorities are 2310

responsible for setting the level of pay and terms and conditions for their clerks and/or chief

executives, this is not undertaken by my Department. However, the Department does have a role

to play with regard to providing approval of appointments to the position of clerk and Responsible

Finance Officer (RFO) to a local authority and this function is carried out under Section 21(3) and


_________________________________________________________________

1180 T130

21(3a) of the Local Government Act, 1985. In order to respond fully to the Hon. Member’s 2315

Question, the Department has contacted the town, village and district authorities to request this

information and their responses are included in tabular form below.

Employment Costs

(overall total including annual salary,

Employers NI, & Employers Pension

Contribution)

Terms of Contract

£100,000 + Douglas: The terms and conditions of the post are those of the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Executives of Local Authorities and provide for a basic 37 hours per week, with a requirement to work additional or flexible hours as required to fulfil the needs of the post.

The basic leave entitlement is 30 days, to which is added 1 day per 10 years' local government service.

£80,000 – £100,000 Ramsey: 37 hour week (Monday to Friday). No additional payment made for additional hours worked. Note: Town Clerk post graded under the National Joint Council at Grade 49+20%

The post is subject to the IOM Local Government Superannuation Scheme in respect of which the employer presently contributes 23% and the post-holder contributes 7.2%. The salary is subject to Employer and Employee National Insurance Contributions.

£60,000 – £80,000 Onchan: 5 days, 37 hour week. The Chief Executive/Clerk is required to attend meetings of the Authority, Board and such Committees as required and work in excess of the above hours in performance of the duties and responsibilities of the post.

The General Conditions of Service are as laid down in the National Agreement on Pay and Conditions of Service of the National Joint Council (NJC) for Local Government Services (the "Green Book")

Peel: Town Clerk's hours of work are 08:45-17:00 worked over the period Monday - Friday inclusive. It may be necessary to vary the hours of work as operational needs demand, but due notice will be given. Overtime is not payable on this scale, but time may be taken in lieu of any overtime worked. Attendance will be required at evening meetings of the Commissioners.

The terms of the Town Clerk's position is that he is subject to the rules, notices, instructions and other directions issued from time to time (or on behalf of) the employer, and unless otherwise stated will be subject to the provisions of the Conditions of Service agreed by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services.

Port Erin: 37 hours per week, plus any additional hours required in order to perform duties, along with any PEC evening meetings or PEC events (additional hours are not remunerated). 29 days holiday per annum.

£40,000 – £60,000 Castletown: This salary is for a 37 hour week with additional attendance at meetings, events etc in the evening; or at the weekend for which no further emolument is given. The holiday entitlement is 30 days. Sick pay etc is as would be normal.

Port St Mary: Contracted hours - 37 per week, plus on average 4 hours per week to cover meetings of the Commissioners.

£20,000 – £40,000 Laxey: Part time 30 hours per week. Annual leave 25 days plus IOM bank holidays; with sick leave as per IOM Government Civil Service.

Michael: Permanent post (part-time) 30 hours per week.


_________________________________________________________________

1181 T130

WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

Sewage treatment works

Proposed sites; details

30. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chairman of the Water and Sewerage

Authority:

(a) If he will place in the library a copy of the Dalrymple Associates independent assessment of

potential sites dated May 2008, further to Written Question 23 in Tynwald on 19th March

2013;

(b) what the reasoning was for using a site zoned for industrial development when both eastern

sites (Meary Veg and the farm outside Ramsey) are farmland;

(c) if he will place in the library a copy of the brief given to Dalrymple Associates for their

assessment of potential sites released in May 2008;

(d) if he will place in the library a copy of the current brief for the feasibility study for the

preferred option in Peel;

(e) whether there will be consultation with (i) Peel Town Commissioners; and (ii) local people

who are affected by these works;

(f) whether since the inception of IRIS there has been a review of the process and it has been

changed to a regional strategy, and why he believes that another review is a waste of time and

money when there is evidence that having a review can substantially reduce costs as outlined

in the Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy Business Case Report approved in July 2009;

(g) whether looking at options for sewage treatment on a life cost-saving basis could save

Government money over the life of the proposed works;

(h) if he will make a statement on the reasons for purchasing a new way of dealing with

sewage sludge; and

(i) whether cost savings from the scheme should be applied to reviewing the processes,

locations and technology of the next scheme?

Answer: In answer to part (a) of the Question, a copy of the Dalrymple site selection report

will be placed, as requested, in the Tynwald Library. 2320

In answer to part (b) of the Question, there were no suitable sites zoned for industrial

development in the vicinity of Douglas and Ramsey.

In answer to part (c) of the Question, reference to the brief is contained within the report.

In answer to part (d) of the Question, a copy of the brief for the feasibility study will not be

provided in the Tynwald Library; however, if the Hon. Member wishes to make an appointment he 2325

can review the document at the Authority’s offices at Tromode.

In answer to part (e) of the Question, the results of the feasibility study will be presented and

discussed at meetings with Peel Commissioners and will also form the basis of a public

presentation in Peel.

In answer to part (f) of the Question, the original Integration and Recycling of Island’s Sewage 2330

(IRIS) master plan was produced in 1992 and recommended an integrated ‘all-Island’ solution to

sewage treatment. Central to the plan was the provision of a single sewage treatment works to

serve the whole of the Island and to be located at Meary Veg.

Since 1995 the implementation of the IRIS master plan in the south of the Island has resulted

in the construction and commissioning of the new sewage treatment works (STW) at Meary Veg 2335

and the completion of a number of network infrastructure projects. Approximately two-thirds of

the Island’s population is now served by the Meary Veg STW.

As the implementation of the IRIS master plan in the south continued, Mouchel Parkman were

commissioned by the former Drainage Division of the then Department of Transport to review the

plan. The purpose of the review was to determine whether or not the outstanding elements of the 2340

Plan remained valid following consideration of changes to the global energy market and advances

in STW technologies.

The Mouchel Parkman review concluded that a strategy of providing a regional and local

approach to sewage treatment now had the potential to offer a more technically robust and

economically more cost effective solution to the treatment of sewage in the rest of the Island. 2345

Upon completion of this review, in September 2006, it was recommended that the Department

develop the feasibility of a regional sewage treatment and sludge disposal strategy. In November

2006 Mouchel Parkman were commissioned to provide a report on the development of a regional


_________________________________________________________________

1182 T130

sewage treatment strategy. The Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy was approved by

Tynwald at the October 2007 sitting. 2350

In September 2008, AECOM was appointed to progress the Regional Sewage Treatment and

Sludge Disposal Strategy, involving the production of a business case which established the need

for the project, set out the range of solutions that would meet the business objectives and provided

justification for the selected primary options. The Business Case Report received Tynwald

approval in July 2009. 2355

In April 2010, the former Drainage Division of the then Department of Transport was

amalgamated with the former Isle of Man Water Authority to form a new Statutory Board namely

the Isle of Man Water & Sewerage Authority (‘the Authority’).

At the April 2011 sitting, Tynwald approved a Financial Motion for Phase 1 of the

Regional Sewage Treatment and Sludge Disposal Strategy as follows: 2360

‘The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority incurring expenditure not exceeding £39,984,000 in order to undertake works associated with the Regional Sewerage Treatment Programme (2011 – 2016) comprising:

Package sewage treatment plants at Patrick, Glen Maye, Dalby, Bride, Maughold Village, Port Lewaigue Glen Mona

and Corony Sewage treatment works at Jurby and Kirk Michael

Sewage treatment works at Ramsey including the transfer of sewage from the Ramsey network

Sludge treatment facility at Meary Veg’

The delivery of phase 1 investment programme is on-going and at the commencement of the

detailed design stage for each project, the proposed design solutions are subjected to a value

engineering review where the outline designs are further refined, which in turn has led to simpler

solutions with easier and quicker construction. This in turn has meant that the works have been

able to be constructed by local contractors and designed by local civil engineering consultants. 2365

This approach has been successful and overall the works are currently on programme and

under budget and the current status of the phase 1 works is as follows:

The works at Dalby, Patrick, Bride and Jurby are complete

The works at Glen Mona, Glen Maye, Corony and Kirk Michael are currently being 2370

constructed and will be completed this year

The new works at Booilushag and Port Lewaigue are about to be tendered

The sludge import, thickening and storage facility for Meary Veg has just commenced

construction and will be completed early next year

Detailed design for the sludge treatment works will commence shortly 2375

Detailed design for the proposed new works in Ramsey will commence shortly

The use of simpler Integrated Rotating Biological Contactor (IRBC) sewage treatment plant

technology has been used for all of the sewage treatment schemes undertaken thus far.

Environmentally the IRBC plants provide a solution that is: 2380

(a) Low energy cost.

(b) Low (or no) odour due to their totally covered design.

(c) Low noise levels which are well below British Standard threshold levels.

(d) Low maintenance cost. 2385

(e) Aesthetically pleasing insofar as they are much less visually intrusive than traditional

STW developments and easily blend into the landscape.

The continual review of the phase 1 schemes undertaken by the Authority in conjunction with

the Capital Projects Unit at Treasury, combined with the favourable tendering environment, has 2390

resulted in significant budgetary savings being realised.

All the projects completed to date have resulted in a positive response from the general public

and the local commissioners. The manner in which the phase 1 works has been developed and

delivered has been acceptable insofar as sustainable local solutions to local problems are being

designed and constructed by local companies, all well below anticipated expenditure levels. 2395

Each project, and indeed the whole RSTS investment programme, is subject to a continual

rolling review to ensure the Authority is obtaining the best Value for Money solutions whilst not

compromising on quality.

In answer to part (g) of the Question, whole life costing is the basis of the Authority’s

quantitative assessment of the options for sewage treatment. 2400


_________________________________________________________________

1183 T130

In answer to part (h) of the Question, the Authority has not purchased a new way of dealing

with the treatment of sewage sludge. The Authority is still considering the most cost effective

(whole life cost) solution for sewage sludge treatment.

In answer to part (i) of the Question, as a result of the continual and rolling review of the phase

1 projects, it is possible that some of the phase 2 schemes could now be funded from within the 2405

currently approved budget for phase 1. As such the Authority has commenced the re-evaluation of

the phase 2 projects to establish (or otherwise) whether the solutions proposed at the business case

stage for treating sewage from the remaining catchments still remain valid and represent best value

for money. The first project being reconsidered is Peel.

Meary Veg; proposed new site at Ramsey

Details

31. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chairman of the Water and Sewerage

Authority:

If he will make a statement on Meary Veg’s designated use for both the existing area treatment

plant and the proposed site on the outskirts of Ramsey; whether a change of use will be needed

for these sites to be used for sewage-treatment; how far away these area treatment works are

from villages and towns, referring specifically to Meary Veg and the outskirts of Ramsey; and

how many breaches of the Environmental Protection Unit’s discharge licence Meary Veg has

had per year since becoming operational?

Answer: The zoning of the land at Meary Veg was determined through the ‘Isle of Man 2410

Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Santon Head Amendment) Order 1995’ and then reviewed

under a subsequent detailed planning application approval process in 2000.

Both of these processes were undertaken prior to the final Tynwald approval of the Isle of Man

Strategic Plan. When this Plan came into operation in 2007 it included a number of instances

(exceptions) to where development would be able to occur on land not zoned for development. 2415

These are set out in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. One such exception would be where the

development proposed could be “recognised to be of over-riding national need in land use

planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative”. It would be

against this policy which any application for a treatment works on un-zoned land would be

assessed. 2420

Meary Veg is approximately five miles south of Douglas, and Balladoole Farm is of the order

of two miles north of Ramsey.

There have been no breaches of the discharge consents for the Meary Veg sewage treatment

works since becoming operational.

2425


_________________________________________________________________

1184 T130

Orders of the Day

Economic Policy Review Committee

Statement by the Chairman

The President: We will now turn to our main Order Paper and deal with Item 4. I call on the

Hon. Member, Mr Singer.

The Chairman of the Economic Policy Review Committee (Mr Singer): Thank you,

Madam President. 2430

At its November sitting, Tynwald Court set the Economic Policy Review Committee the task

of enquiring into the Open Skies policy. The remit of this enquiry is that the Economic Committee

should examine whether (a) the current Open Skies policy is, in the light of changing

circumstances, still in the best interests of the Isle of Man in preserving and encouraging an

adequate, frequent and long-term network of scheduled air services between the Island and major 2435

business and social destinations; and (b) that the determination of the Island’s civil aviation policy

should properly be in the remit of the Department of Economic Development with the operation

and management of the Airport the responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure; and report

to Tynwald Court no later than the April 2013 sitting.

The Committee has received a large number of written admissions… submissions (Laughter) 2440

on this important issue – ‘and/or’! The Committee has received a large number of written

submissions on this important issue from airlines, the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company,

industry commentators and the public. On 13th March, we took oral evidence from the

Department of Infrastructure and the Department of Economic Development, including the

Director of the Ronaldsway Airport. We will be taking oral evidence on 25th April from airlines, 2445

and in May from other industry commentators. We may well then take further oral evidence from

the Departments.

This subject, Madam President, requires a great deal of careful thought. Because of the amount

of evidence collected, the Committee has not been able to complete its enquiries and report in

April as requested. We will report as soon as we are able to. I hope that this Hon. Court will accept 2450

that this subject is too complex and important to be given anything other than very careful

consideration.


The President: Hon. Members, I think we should now adjourn. The adjournment will be until 2455

2.30 p.m.

Can I remind Members of Council that they are required to take their seats in the Council

Chamber.


Mill Road Yard Development Phase 2, Peel

Expenditure approved

5. The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to move:

That Tynwald approves the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture incurring

expenditure not exceeding £1,428,000 in respect of Mill Road Yard Development Phase 2,

Peel.

[Ref: Scheme Code G11-010 Item 5 under the heading ‘Mill Road Yard Development’ on page

26 of the Isle of Man Budget 2013-14 and as detailed in the Estimates of Capital Payments

2013-14 to 2017-18 under the heading Environment, Food and Agriculture ‘Committed

Schemes’ on page 68 of the Isle of Man Budget 2013-14]

The President: Please be seated, Hon. Members.

We move on to Item 5, Mill Road Yard Development Phase 2, and I call on the Minister for 2460

Environment, Food and Agriculture to move.


_________________________________________________________________

1185 T130

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu,

Eaghtyrane.

This motion seeks Tynwald approval for the expenditure of £1,428,000 for phase 2 of the Isle 2465

of Man Food Park at Mill Road Yard in Peel.

The Department has been working closely with the Department of Economic Development to

develop the site and following a study undertaken in 2011, we identified considerable

opportunities to create a specialist location for the food industry, building around the existing

businesses there that produce everything from scallops to ice cream and sandwiches. 2470

This development has, to date, contributed to an increase in the number of shore-based jobs in

the scallop industry from a summer peak of 150 in the summer of 2010 to a non-seasonal level of

230 by December 2012. Simultaneously, the value of the fishing sector to the economy has risen

from about £9 million to an estimated £13 million, with the vast majority of this being through

valuable export sales. 2475

Phase 1 of this project involved the erection of security fencing and installation of security

cameras. This has already proved its worth as episodes of vandalism and fly tipping associated

with the site previously have now ceased, and according to the Government Valuer, the rental

value of properties on the site has increased by 10%.

The fencing is assisting the processors to comply with the British Retail Consortium Quality 2480

Standard. Indeed, a recent visit by a major French supermarket customer attracted positive

comments on the facilities and indeed the security of the site.

Members will be aware that this development has attracted some criticism. Of the 12

companies based there, one has been vocal in resisting change; however, following a meeting

between tenants and the Department just over a month ago, I understand that most of the tenants’ 2485

concerns have been amicably resolved. Indeed, a number of the tenants welcome the opportunity

to expand on the new sites that will be brought forward.

Phase 2 of the development will bring to the market three new development sites that will

house factories of nearly 1,400 square metres. Two of the three sites are under offer to Manx

seafood processing companies and ground leases have been issued by the Attorney General’s 2490

Chambers. There is significant interest in the third site, but as it occupies land that will be required

during the construction of phase 2, no full commitment has yet been entered into.

According to the Treasury’s Economic Affairs Division, phase 2 of this development will

create an estimated 93 additional jobs, with an increase in the wages paid of £1.56 million, tax

revenue of £320,000 per annum and enhanced rental for DEFA of £20,000 per annum. 2495

It is fair to say that there may be some double counting with regard to additional jobs, as some

of the tenants have already taken on additional workers in anticipation of the extra space which

would be made available to them on completion of phase 2, but it is equally fair to say that most of

these posts would be unsustainable if phase 2 is not undertaken.

The work required to facilitate this development includes new surface water and foul drainage 2500

systems, delineating roadways and pedestrian walkways, as well as creating car parking areas for

existing plots. There will be upgraded water, electricity, gas and telecoms supplied to the site,

replacing old installations which presently are not able to accommodate the planned increased

activity.

A Manx company is the preferred contractor for the work and the company has confirmed that, 2505

with the exception of a small amount of specialist equipment, all goods will be sourced locally and

all work will be carried out by Manx subcontractors employing only Manx workers. The wage

spend within the project will be £385,000, or the equivalent to 15 months’ work for 18 workers.

Similarly, the design team for the project is, with one small exception, all Manx.

The exact split, for Members’ interest, is off-Island work, i.e. the specialist attenuation tank 2510

installation together with supply of fencing and bin store components, steel mesh and bar

reinforcement, £112,732, with the remainder, £1,273,988, being the Manx company’s own labour,

local subcontractors and materials sourced through local suppliers; that is to say 92% of the project

funds staying within the Manx economy.

I have had some concerns over the scale of professional fees for this project; however, bearing 2515

in mind the complexity of refurbishing a quite elderly underground infrastructure, I believe the

level of fees is quite competitive, particularly when compared to many other Government capital

projects which have come before this Court.

The Department has also been working with the Department of Infrastructure to ensure that the

Peel community will further benefit from this development. As part of phase 2, we will improve 2520

the storm water holding capacity and drainage within Mill Road, an area which has historically

had a flooding problem.


_________________________________________________________________

1186 T130

I continue to be of the view that the development of Mill Road Yard is a really good news

story for the Manx economy. It is also a good investment, with the Government supporting the

generation of wealth and jobs that will, in turn, increase our revenue. Having regard to the current 2525

economic difficulties, anything of this nature really does deserve our support.

I would, therefore, Eaghtyrane, move the resolution in my name.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Crookall.

2530

Mr Crookall: Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I am obviously more than happy to second this motion on the paper before

us today, and I would just please ask for the forgiveness of the Member for the Department in

taking her position here, when I know she was about to second it herself.

As I said, I am more than happy to support this, Madam President, on behalf of Peel and the 2535

west of the Island, but also the Isle of Man plc. This is a very much needed Scheme for the Isle of

Man food industry, not only creating up to 80 new jobs for the Island, but also it is going to be

seen to be renovating and renewing services in the Mill Road Yard area, which is very much in

need of doing so. I think it has had that many add-ons and additions to the services – water,

electric and things – over the last few years, it is a real mess down there and this is much needed 2540

for the businesses.

Also, the Minister cleared up the matter of the flooding in the Mill Road Yard, Mill Road area,

which has been going on for years and probably caused the Department of Infrastructure and

WASA years of headaches on how to sort it out, and this will eventually do it.

But the big win for this, Madam President, and the for the Isle of Man plc, is that with the extra 2545

jobs, those people will be paying tax and it will come back into the Treasury’s chest. So this job

will actually pay for itself, unlike some, and if I can use the Peel Road Scheme as an example, that

is a job that needs doing but will never pay for itself, whereas this one will do.

I am more than happy to second it, Madam President. Thank you.

2550

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Quirk.


I, too, welcome the move forward, particularly in the Peel area, and also, through the Minister,

from the Department. My short time… was it a short time in DAFF? I do not know, Mr Cregeen, 2555

was it?

The Minister: It seemed like a long time! (Laughter)

Mr Quirk: It seemed a long time. I suppose the training was there; I suppose I got the chip 2560

fitted at the same time. But I was – as the Minister pointed out to me the other week, last week –

banging on about the Peel Road Yard and how dowdy and unloved it looked, and here we are at

phase 2 now where, really, Members should be supporting this.

I know in a particular area here I welcome the initiative that has taken place. We took an

opportunity to view it last week and I did see the merits in formulating the road. I missed that 2565

particular trip where the Department are maximizing the land use now, which I think is of benefit

not only to the people who are on site there, but it regulates the site itself, having an office on

board and somewhere to go to, which is not luxurious but it is in the right position. When people

are coming, they want to see what they are going to invest in, and if we do not invest in our

industrial units right around the Island there will be no hope for us for the future. 2570

So I welcome the initiative that is coming forward. I know there will always be some people,

even on a particular site, who will say, ‘Oh, this is not wanted. We are doubling up. Waste a bit

more money.’ But I would like to see, in a few more years’ time now, when the site is actually

finished. (Interjection) Well, I have taken assurance from the Minister, and I am sure he will give

it, that that place will be loved and taken care of. I welcome the fence that has been put around the 2575

actual site and I think that has really been of benefit, and other people may not have seen that, but

I think if you are having a place where you need security… it is a major food park, and when

people come from other jurisdictions they expect these sorts of things to happen.

I wish the Department well and I know, by the Minister explaining there, that quite a lot of the

money is going to be invested in Manx companies. Jobs are there at a time when industry needs a 2580

little bit more work to help it over, and so I am more than satisfied, even after the visit.

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


_________________________________________________________________

1187 T130

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Madam President. 2585

I would just like to thank the Department for inviting me down to the fish yard to have a look

at the site and to explain some of the questions and queries I had. In coming to a conclusion to

support or not to support this, I felt there were five questions that needed to be answered as to

whether or not it should proceed.

My first question is: does the work need to be done? Having visited the site twice and met the 2590

companies that are working down there and spoken to the officers from the Department of

Environment, Food and Agriculture, the answer is yes. I think it is vitally important in any

business that, instead of selling your product as a raw commodity, you process it to try and achieve

a decent return, as high a return as possible, on the product. I think the work that is needed to be

done down there, and is being done at the moment, is totally necessary to support the fishing 2595

industry and it is a rarity. It is a success story. It is making money. There is an increase in money

for Isle of Man plc and the Treasury coffers will be seeing a benefit. So, yes, on point one, it ticks

the box.

Question 2: do I support the policy of investing in our infrastructure to enable local business to

achieve a better return? Of course I do. 2600

Question 3: is the Minister right in bringing the proposal to Tynwald in the current financial

climate? Again, yes. It will be money that will be going around the Island’s economy and again,

the multiplier effect, some of that will come back to Treasury funds. So I cannot complain there.

Question 4: do I think the contractors will do a good job? Yes. The company concerned, I

think, has a good reputation and I am sure the job will be done on time and on budget. 2605

But question 5 is one that has concerned me, really, and that question is: is it value for money?

Are we getting value for the taxpayers’ money of £1,612,451? It is a lot of money in anyone’s…

or it should be a lot of money to anybody, and sometimes I think in here we just nod things

through. It is maybe not our money, but we should be looking at getting really good value for the

taxpayers’ money. 2610

I think the fees are down on what had initially been costed for the project, so on the whole I

feel that maybe we are getting value for money on the majority of the expenditure in this case, but

what really concerns me is the 10% rule for professional fees, and that is where I am struggling. If

Treasury have this rule that a certain percentage of the total cost is £1.5 million, therefore we are

going to pay the architect and whoever else is involved in drawing up the project… they are going 2615

to get £150,000 for designing the scheme.

If this was a hospital – with the design of a hospital there are so many factors you have got to

take into consideration – or a school, similar problems, then you could say 10% might be a really

good deal for the taxpayer; but this is for the holding tanks, a new electricity main and concreting

– ripping up the old concrete and recovering – along with some other things, and I am not 2620

convinced that we should be just saying, ‘Right, 10% of the cost is what you are going to get for

your fee.’

I think that we should be trying to get a price off the professionals on how much they are going

to charge for doing the cost. We are paying the princely sum of £141,803 for professional fees to

draw up the plans for it and to do the flows for the water – for the foul and surface water – and it 2625

just concerns me that that is over the top. I do not personally think that, in the real world, anyone

would say, ‘Yes, you can have 10% of my total cost as your fee.’ I do not think that this Court is

getting value for money on that side of things.

However, having gone through the project, the return on capital laid out and money coming

back to the Treasury, I will support it, in this instance, because I do think it is a valuable project 2630

for the fishing industry and the Island in general. But I have concerns and I would hope that maybe

Treasury will take on board the 10% rule for professional fees and maybe revisit it so that we can

say to the taxpayer that we are definitely getting value for money.


2635

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

Mr Wild: Thank you, Madam President.

I just want to give the motion my support from an economic development perspective. I think

it is important to develop economic zones outside of the Douglas area and create growth in the 2640

north, south and west, and the Peel Food Park, I think, is an excellent example of this policy.

I was unable to join the visit on Friday, but made an independent visit on Saturday. I probably

got a few strange looks, but I was certainly impressed with the fence and what was being

developed there, and I can see the logic of this investment developing the Park further.


_________________________________________________________________

1188 T130

I do agree with the Hon. Member for Middle in terms of some of the points he has made. I 2645

think it was a very good economic summary and perhaps there are lessons we can learn, going

forward, from this particular proposed capital cost when we look at future ones; but for now I

think it is an excellent opportunity. To me, it is vital that the Department of Economic

Development works closely with the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture through

the Employment and Skills team to maximise the benefit for Manx workers. 2650

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


Madam President, I was brought to my feet by some of the comments by the Hon. Member for 2655

Middle, Mr Quayle. There is no set 10% on construction costs for professional fees. In actual fact,

the fees are flexible and they can be negotiated. We have had schemes brought to this Hon. Court

where professional fees would normally be 8%, some could be 11%, and it depends on the

complexity of the scheme which is going forward. In actual fact, the Capital Projects Unit will be

visiting Mill Yard at its next meeting. So there is no actual 10% on all construction. 2660

If we go back to the hospital many years ago and that construction – and I believe, Madam

President, of course you were involved – the fees there were 15% and should have been a lot lower

on a very large construction such as the hospital.

I can give Mr Quayle my assurance that I am always looking at the professional fees and

questioning my officers as to why these fees are high, because in actual fact, over the last few 2665

years, we have taken percentage reductions and all our professional people were told that there

would be at least a 20% reduction on their normal fees, but there is no set figure such as 10%. We

will negotiate as low as we possibly can.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Ronan. 2670

Mr Ronan: Thank you, Madam President.

I have no hesitation in rising to support the Minister and his Department’s endeavours to create

a stronger and more resilient Manx food industry. This investment in Mill Road is the next stage in

developing excellent facilities that will allow us to produce, showcase, sell and export the best of 2675

locally produced food, and I wish him and his Department every success in this much-needed

development.

If the figures for shellfish exports in recent years are any indication, there is a substantial

amount of revenue to be raised in exporting more of our top-quality locally produced food. As a

fervent campaigner of localism, I support any investment in our infrastructure that benefits local 2680

producers and businesses.

Being mindful of the pressure that the public purse is under, I would like to encourage all

Ministers to ensure that, where development of our infrastructure is needed for economic

development reasons, the private sector receive a realistic and viable opportunity to progress such

a development, even if that is in partnership with the Government. 2685


The President: The Minister to reply.


I would like to thank Hon. Members for their comments, and particularly thank the Hon.

Member for Peel, Mr Crookall, for seconding and the sensible remarks he made. Thank you very

much for that.

I remember with great joy and fondness the time I spent in the old DAFF with Mr Quirk, and I

do not think a single Department meeting went by without him mentioning the need for work to be 2695

done at Mill Road because it looked a state and it really needed to be sorted out. Perhaps a little

late in the day, we have now finally started to make some real and significant progress down there

and I do thank the Hon. Member for Onchan for his support in DAFF and subsequently for

moving this on.

I also thank Mr Quayle, the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quirk for Onchan, and Mr Coleman, 2700

our new Member of Legislative Council – was anybody else there; I think that was it – and Mr

Crookall, I should say, for attending the tour that we had on Friday. Apologies to Members for the

short notice for that, but I also had a number of queries from other Members, which was helpful. I

would be more than happy to share our time and coffee with the Members – no biscuits though.


_________________________________________________________________

1189 T130

I think the Hon. Member for Middle has it absolutely right in that we should be considering 2705

those five points in every capital scheme that comes forward: does the work need to be done; do

we need to support infrastructure and investment; is the time right to come to Tynwald; will the

workforce that we are taking on do a good job; is it value for money? These are important

questions, and I would certainly hope that we would not just nod things through.

Certainly, as a Minister who has had the responsibility in the past for the Department of 2710

Infrastructure and for the limited capital schemes going through DEFA and DAFF, it certainly

does not feel like we are nodding these things through. It feels like an awful lot of extraordinarily

hard work to actually get the support for the schemes that we are trying to deliver, and possibly

that is the area that the Hon. Member is looking at, really, questioning whether that level of

scrutiny of each and every single project is what is required, or can we take more of a risk with 2715

projects.

I do have some sympathy for his views in that regard. I think most people, if you ask them, in

the private sector will say, ‘Well, we could do it for half the price that Government does it.’ In

reality, whether that is true or not is another matter; but there is certainly some truth in the fact

that, if the public sector is doing the work, the public sector comes under considerably more 2720

scrutiny than if it is the private sector. If the private sector gets it wrong, they probably sack the

person responsible and move on. If the public sector gets it wrong, several inquiries ensue and vast

expense is undertaken to find out who was responsible, why they were responsible and how we

can stop it happening again, and then we wrap ourselves up with more and more red tape and

consequently we become, perhaps, risk averse and more expensive in terms of the way we deliver 2725

projects. But I do understand the concern and I think it is right that the Hon. Member for Middle

raises that.

He also raised the point about fisheries being a success story. I did have the opportunity only a

few days ago to meet with the main representatives of the fisheries industry at our quarterly Sea

Fisheries Advisory Committee, and whilst they are happy to acknowledge, at the moment, that the 2730

sea fisheries sector in particular is thriving, they also wished to point out that, if we keep cutting

the way we are cutting, the thriving can only go on so long as there is a reasonable amount of

support from the Department. So we have to be aware of that, that there is only so far you can cut,

and then we are going to start impacting on the amount of progress we are making.

I thank Mr Wild for his support and Mr Ronan as well for his support – much appreciated. 2735

I also thank the Hon. Member responsible for the capital programme in Treasury, Mr

Braidwood, for his intervention and clarification. I think it is important to note that… my

contention is that the professional fees are not excessive. I was concerned when I first looked at

the project, and indeed sent the project back because I was specifically concerned about

professional fees. I was then told that we had already got a reduction of £10,000 from the original 2740

bid fees. I think it is important to point out that the £142,000, approximately, that we have got in

the project for professional fees is not about designing the project, as £54,000 is the architect’s fee

and a further £88,000 covers civil engineers, service engineers, quantity surveyors, planning

supervisors and drainage engineers, with the bulk being engineering because this is a significant

engineering project and it is a difficult project for us to deliver. 2745

So I do believe that it is a good project. It works very well for the food industry in the Isle of

Man, and I hope that Hon. Members will support this Scheme.

The President: The motion before Court stands at Item 5 on your Order Paper. Those in

favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 2750

Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald

Second Report and recommendations

Amended motion carried

6. The Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald (Mr Speaker) to move:

That the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald [PP No 0057/13] be

received and that the following recommendations be approved:

That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:

(a) In Standing Order 10.9 to leave out the words ‘with the consent of the Court’.


_________________________________________________________________

1190 T130

(b) In Standing Order 10.11, to add (3A): ‘Where papers are submitted electronically they

must be in a format as directed by the Clerk of Tynwald.’

(c) In Standing Order 10.11, to add (3B): ‘A Member may opt for a paper to be laid before

Tynwald to be circulated to him or her under Standing Order 10.9 either electronically or in

hard copy.’

The President: Item 6, I call on the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald,

Mr Speaker, to move.

The Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald (The Speaker): Thank you,

Madam President. 2755

I rise to present the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald and I am

grateful to the members of the Committee, who have given the matter consideration.

As Hon. Members will see, this Report proposes changes to Standing Orders dealing with the

circulation of papers to Members. Current arrangements were designed before the advent of

electronic means of communication, and we have identified revisions to the Standing Orders, to 2760

allow use of modern means of communication where appropriate. Revision of the rules to take into

account electronic media would allow savings to public funds in preparing documents and

Members would be able to gain access to documents electronically, to enable faster and more

effective searches to be made. In this regard, we know from recent experience the considerable

savings of tens of thousands of pounds that have been realised by uploading Hansard proceedings 2765

of the court electronically, in doing away with paper copies.

We looked at this issue in response to a request by the Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr

Shimmin, who raised with us the issue of circulation of documents under Standing Order 10.9 and

10.11. He made the point that the cost of preparing and distributing some documents was

considerable, and in some cases beyond what was necessary for the Court. Cases where large 2770

technical documents were appended to subordinate legislation raised the question whether every

paper needed to be circulated in hard copy or whether it was sufficient to send electronic copies,

with paper copies left in the library and/or in the Members’ offices area for inspection.

Relevant Standing Orders are 10.9 and 10.11(3), and there are three basic principles which we

bore in mind when framing our proposed changes to Standing Orders. Firstly, most importantly, 2775

each Member should have the right to see a copy of any document laid before the Court, whether it

falls to be considered or not, either electronically or in hard copy. The choice between delivering

paper or electronic copies should not lie with the Department or other organisation laying a paper;

instead Members should either be able to opt out of any system of circulation of hard copy or

conversely insist on provision of traditional paper copies. We felt that was an important principle 2780

to put it in the hands of the Members, the form in which they wished to receive documents.

Secondly, there should be scope for the exercise of discretion by the President in suitable cases

for relaxation of any rule for submitting papers in hard copy and for the President to set conditions

for such relaxation. The current rule only allows discretion to be exercised by the President with

the consent of the court, i.e. in cases where there is a last-minute circulation of a paper. It is not 2785

open to the President under the Standing Orders to make special arrangements for papers which

are expensive or difficult to produce, whether because of their length or otherwise. Allowing the

President discretion will allow arrangements to be made well before a sitting where there is, for

example, a large technical document or a large map. This will allow Members to choose to waive

their right to a hard copy on terms which the President may settle with the Department. 2790

Typically, we expect that at least two copies of any extensive document would be sent to the

Library and may be inspected there. The default position would remain that paper copies are

delivered to Tynwald for Members.

The third point or principle, now that the Clerk of Tynwald needs to be able to upload papers

onto the Tynwald website, the rules should allow for Departments to be told in what electronic 2795

format documents should be supplied and that documents should be supplied electronically in

addition to paper copies. Currently, this is achieved by way of an annual submission guide

prepared and circulated by the Chief Secretary’s Office.

Madam President, the Committee proposes that Standing Orders be amended in the way I have

described and as set out in the Order Paper in order to achieve these objectives and I beg to move 2800

the amendments to Standing Orders, as set out in the Report.

Mr Braidwood: I beg to second, Madam President, and reserve my remarks.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Watterson. 2805


_________________________________________________________________

1191 T130

Mr Watterson: Madam President, I support the gist of this. I think it is great to see that we are

slowly moving towards a greater acceptance of electronic media in the Chamber and for Members’

paperwork.

I do have some concerns, however, about part (a) of the Report and would perhaps ask you, 2810

Madam President, if we could vote on that part separately, as I feel it needs a bit more work if it is

to achieve the objectives that the Speaker has set out for us.

The present regulation requires the vote of the Court to waive the 14 days’ notice for papers

and I am worried that this principle provides the opportunity for Tynwald Court to be bounced into

accepting papers at short notice, at the whim of the presiding officer. Now, in saying that, I would 2815

like to state quite clearly, I have no concerns over Madam President’s judgement, but Standing

Orders exist to provide the right balance between Government and backbencher, and indeed

empowers the President to decide on a number of areas. However, a vote of the Court provides a

check and, more importantly, perhaps protects the office of the President from accusations of

being partisan by one side or the other, in selecting which documents may or may not be circulated 2820

in different formats.

The scenario that flitted through the mind was if, say, the Government wanted to e-mail a

paper round at 10.29 on the day of a sitting, so that they could say that Hon. Members had

received it, they would only have to get this past the President – not always an easy feat, but I just

throw that scenario in. So I would caution Members, backbenchers as well as Ministers, that by 2825

relinquishing our say in the matter of circulation of papers, I would worry that the power over how

this Court operates is somewhat diluted and the office of President could be exposed to more

accusations of being partisan, whichever way the President decides on an issue.

Now, the Speaker has raised the quite valid point that removing large, complex, expensive

circulars is a valid aim, but that is not laid out as it stands in the revised wording of the Standing 2830

Order. So I would perhaps ask the Standing Orders Committee to go away and revisit how that is

worded in order to achieve these ends, given the concerns that I have outlined. So for my part, I

think I will probably reject part (a) for that reason and support parts (b) and (c), for the reasons I

have just stated, Madam President.

2835


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I actually think the Hon. Member, as a member of the Committee,

has a reasonable thing. It may even be better trying to refer the first part back to the Committee,

accepting the other two parts, as far as that. I am perfectly happy to support the referring back. I 2840

take it that is what the Hon. Member was proposing, as far as that is concerned, and I think that

would not be an unreasonable request, as far as the Hon. Member, so I would be happy to second

that referral back.

Mr Watterson: Just on a point of order, Madam President, in terms of that referring back that 2845

the Hon. Member referred to, by rejecting part (a), I would call on the Committee to reconsider it

as a Standing Committee, rather than actually looking for any particular mechanism for referring

back, if that helps the Court.

The President: Well, for clarification, can I check that the hon. seconder was seconding the 2850

issue that it be put in separate parts, in order to… (Interjection)

Right, if no Hon. Member wishes to speak, Mr Speaker to reply, please.

The Speaker: Thank you and I thank the two Members who have made their comments.

I think the important thing here is to appreciate the practicality of what we are talking about. 2855

We are not talking about a potential abuse of position if, without the consent, papers were to be

circulated at the last minute. What we are talking about is the practicality in the time before the

sitting, in the two weeks before the sitting, of getting documents out – technical documents or

maps into Members’ hands, electronically or on paper. Clearly, it is not going to be practical for

the Court to give consent in that situation. The Court will not be sitting. 2860

So the Committee did recognise the point that has been made, but we felt that it was a perfectly

reasonable balance to be struck for discretion on the part of the President to rule in certain cases. I

am sure that the number of cases where, in practice, we have had last-minute circulation of

documents, it is open to the President to seek the concurrence for the circulation, even though that

is not specifically in Standing Orders. 2865


_________________________________________________________________

1192 T130

But we are really talking about large documents circulated two weeks before the sitting, which

could not be done other than by giving the consent of the Court, which would be clearly

impractical.

I beg to move.

2870

The President: Hon. Members, the motion before the Court stands at Item 6 on your Order

Papers. To that, we have had a motion under Standing Order 3.12(1)(b), that the propositions be

voted on separately. I therefore put to you part (a) of the motion. Those in favour, please say aye;

against, no. The ayes have it. Division called.

Now, I understand our electronic systems were not working. Are they working yet? 2875

The Clerk: Unfortunately not, Madam President.

Several Members: Oh!

2880

The President: Right, so we will have a called division, Hon. Members. (Interjections) It is a

called division, not a ballot.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 8, Noes 13

FOR Mr Cannan Mr Quayle Mr Ronan Mr Skelly Mr Houghton Mrs Cannell Mr Singer The Speaker

AGAINST Mr Anderson Mr Teare Mr Watterson Mr Gawne Mr Henderson Mr Cretney Mrs Beecroft Mr Robertshaw Mr Crookall Mr Bell Mr Karran Mr Hall Mr Cregeen

The Speaker: Madam President, in the Keys, 8 votes for, 13 against.

In the Council – Ayes 6, Noes 1

FOR Mr Butt Mr Braidwood Mr Coleman Mr Downie Mr Crowe Mr Corkish

AGAINST Mr Wild

The President: In the Council, 6 votes for, 1 against: the branches are in disagreement. The

motion therefore fails to carry. 2885

We move on to item (b)… Sorry, Hon. Members. (Interjection) I am putting the question – that

is what I said, sir. We move onto item… The motion was to deal with (a). We are now moving to

(b). In fact, no Member has disagreed with (b) and (c). Would you be content that I put them

together, given that we are probably in for called votes?

It was agreed.

The President: The motion is then that elements (b) and (c) of the motion are to be voted 2890

upon. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

I therefore put the substantive motion. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes

have it. The ayes have it.


_________________________________________________________________

1193 T130

Social Affairs Policy Review Committee

First Report and recommendations

Debate commenced

7. The Caairliagh of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee (Mrs Cannell) to move:

That the First Report of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee for 2012-13

[PP No 0015/13] be received and that the following recommendations be approved –

Recommendation 1

That Tynwald considers an eight-month delay in providing a substantive response to a request

by a parliamentary committee for a specified document to be completely unacceptable.

Recommendation 2

That work on the centralised pupil database should be halted until the necessary legislative

framework is in place.

Recommendation 3

That before it puts any updated legislative framework for the handling of pupil data before

Tynwald for approval, the Department of Education and Children should undertake thorough

consultation with Tynwald Members, parents, teachers and other interested parties.

Recommendation 4

That the Council of Ministers should ensure that legislation to strengthen the enforcement

powers of the Data Protection Supervisor is introduced as soon as possible taking into account

international developments.

[This Report was laid in February and circulated with the papers for the February sitting of

Tynwald. The DEC response to this Report, which is to be laid at this sitting, is relevant to this

Item.]

The President: We move now to Item 7, Hon. Members. I call on the Caairliagh of the Social

Affairs Policy Review Committee, Mrs Cannell, to move. 2895

The Caairliagh of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee (Mrs Cannell): Thank you,

Madam President.

The Social Affairs Policy Review Committee was established in 2011 with a remit to scrutinise

the implemented policies of the Department of Health, the Department of Home Affairs, the 2900

Department of Education and Children and the Department of Social Care. This is our first Report

to the Hon. Court.

We decided, Madam President, to investigate the centralised pupil database, following our

general oral evidence session with the Department of Education and Children on 2nd May 2012.

The relevant parts of Hansard of that particular meeting for that session are reproduced within the 2905

Report.

Just to explain briefly that twice a year, we invite the Department together… the Minister and

the Chief Executive of the four Departments to come in for a general public session of discussion,

to examine their policies, to see and hear any problems they might be experiencing and also to

raise any concerns that we might have. 2910

We also took a general oral evidence session with them on 9th November 2012. But what led

up to the investigation or the fact that we wanted to look at it? Well, if Members look in the

Report, they will see that on 13th December 2011, there were five questions raised by the Hon. Mr

Speaker in connection with the database which the Department of Education were wishing to

progress with. Hansard will also show that on 10th July 2012, further questions were raised by Mr 2915

Speaker.

Of course, we then pursued more information on 2nd May 2012. I think it is probably fair to

say that we felt that we needed to pursue this a little bit closer to be absolutely satisfied that

everything was as it should be.

We received written advice. We have also had a wealth of correspondence with the 2920

Department of Education, which is all annexed within the Report. We received evidence from the

Data Protection Supervisor, and we did so in private, because some of the issues that we were

discussing with him… of course, we were discussing the vulnerability or otherwise of certain data


_________________________________________________________________

1194 T130

recordings on such a central database. We also received correspondence and heard from a

concerned parent. All of that is contained within the Report. 2925

I am going to jump right to the recommendations, Madam President, because there are four

that we feel are very valuable and important, not only for Tynwald Court, but also for the

Department and moreover for Government as a whole and all of those employed by us.

In pursuing the investigation, the Department of Education explained to us that they had had

legal advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers to the effect that there was no need for our 2930

concerns in respect of the data protection. What we were concerned about was whether or not

headteachers in the Island’s schools, who are charged under legislation for the collating and

collecting of attendance records, names and addresses and just the basic details like that, are

charged with doing that under legislation; but they also collect a lot more sensitive data – very

sensitive data in some circumstances. You have to expect that they need to do that in order to be 2935

able to help a particular pupil with problems that they may be having or social problems that might

be impacting upon their ability to teach that child and so the schools have, for a very long time,

kept data like that in the school for their own use. Once the database was up and running, the

Department quite naturally – because it is trying to manage things from a central core – wanted the

headteachers of the various schools to send all of that information through to the Department, so 2940

that it can properly co-ordinate future policies and know at any one time… to be able to take the

pulse, if you like, of education, right across the sphere.

What we discovered was that, under data protection, the actual headteacher is not covered

under legislation to extend the private, confidential and sensitive information on to the Department

of Education. That is it in a nutshell, basically. That is the story in a nutshell. 2945

We, in our Report, in our investigation, are not looking to criticise anybody. We are not

looking to criticise the Department of Education or data protection or anybody, or the schools.

What we are wishing the Court to support is the additional protection to be afforded to these

teachers, by way of regulation and legislation, so that their backs are covered. At the moment, I

would assert that in fact they are in a vulnerable situation for passing on information for which 2950

they have no legal authority.

They do have the legal authority to, as I said, record pupil attendances and names and

addresses of all the students in their school, but that is as far as the Education Act goes.

The Departments sought legal advice from the Attorney General’s and we were told that the

legal advice, as I said before, came back and said everything is fine, because the schools and the 2955

Department are one. They all come under the Department of Education. What, from what we can

gather, the Attorney General’s advice did not cover, was the position in terms of the data

protection legislation and the positions of those headteachers. There did not appear to be any

advice in that regard, and this is where our prime concern raised.

Moreover, we were very concerned that we had to chase the Department for just over eight 2960

months to supply us with a copy of legal opinion, so that we ourselves could be satisfied that in

fact our concerns were not perhaps as serious as we thought they would be, in respect of the

situation.

We are very disappointed that, after eight months of chasing the Department, we still to this

day have not received confirmation of that legal advice. Moreover, we are more disappointed that 2965

the Department has seen fit to deny it of us. It would appear, though, that there is some

misunderstanding as to their position in all of this, in that the Department is the client, the

Attorney General’s is the lawyer, and there is a client-lawyer privilege. However, it is up to the

client to decide whether or not to extend that information they have received from a legal source to

another. So in fact, the Department is covered. 2970

There was a report by Mr Singer, the Hon. Member for Ramsey’s, Scrutiny Committee on this

very matter, not so very long ago, that clarified the situation. So it is doubly disappointing that

here we go again with another Committee that has come across the same brick wall, if you like.

So the first recommendation in our Report is:

‘That Tynwald considers an eight-month delay in providing a substantive response to a request by a parliamentary committee for a specified document to be completely unacceptable.’

I would probably go a little bit further than that, and say that if chief executives of Departments 2975

are not aware of this position, then I implore the Ministers to go back in and advise their officers

accordingly, that in fact they are covered because they are the client in this type of situation.

We then looked at our principal concern relating to the centralised pupil database, and it does

handle very personal information. The obligations of the Department of Education and Children: it

covers the headteachers, the data protection legislation. It makes references to looked-after 2980


_________________________________________________________________

1195 T130

children, children with disabilities, low-level special educational needs, and the database holds

highly sensitive personal information about vulnerable individuals. In fact, the total list of data

fields is far wider than the headline topics and if Hon. Members look through the Report, they will

see what the headline subject matters are.

We pursued the example of proper handling on the Role-Based Access Control with the Data 2985

Protection Supervisor, and his advice is very interesting because at first, we explored this with him

and only when we sat down and discussed the pros and cons of our concerns did he then go away,

consider and look again and then came back and confirmed to us that it would appear that the

headteacher does not have the necessary legal authority to provide the Department all the

information which the database includes – some of it, but not all of it. 2990

Now, that is principally where we are coming from. What we have said is this could be quite

serious. You only need to consider the worst-case scenario of a family who, for whatever reason,

have had problems with their youngsters at school, and they discover and we have all heard it – it

has happened in the United Kingdom fairly recently – where very sensitive information was put on

a JPEG and lost. Although the officer who had it had the authority to have it, he lost it; and then 2995

some other information that was found, having been chucked in a bin. All of this obviously is in

the United Kingdom, but we have to be very aware that we do not want any shortcomings in here.

If that was to happen, the first port of call, I would have thought, with a family who had deep

pockets, was to pursue the school that held the information – the school that the parents gave the

information to. That would be the first port of call. 3000

Recommendation 2 therefore says:

‘That work on the centralised pupil database should be halted until the necessary legislative framework is in place.’

We are not saying that they should not have a database. We are not saying that they should not

have it. They have got it: the money has been spent. It is in being, but I doubt if they have actually

included in it yet all of what they want to include. What we are saying is that, because of the

sensitivity and the seriousness of the situation, we are asking them to halt for the time being. 3005

The Data Protection Supervisor says, in his advice, however, that although the processing may

not be currently lawful, it seems that the Department of Education could produce a new set of

regulations that, subject to Tynwald approval, would make the processing lawful. That is all we

are asking for.

Recommendation 3, therefore, says: 3010

‘That before it puts any updated legislative framework for the handling of pupil data before Tynwald for approval, the

Department of Education and Children should undertake thorough consultation with Tynwald Members, parents,

teachers and other interested parties.’

That did not happen before the policy of putting together a database that was going to hold all

of this information and the information sharing, which we condone has got to happen in order to

alert everybody to the needs of the child.

We then, toward the end of our investigation, pursued what powers the Data Protection

Supervisor had and we asked him about this. We thanked him, and we asked him if he had 3015

sufficient powers to enforce adherence to data protection legislation by Government Departments.

His response may be summarised in two words. He said, ‘not yet’.

He then went on to say, he described the international, the United Kingdom and our local

situation, in relation to data protection enforcement, and he concluded, and I quote:

‘… while the Supervisor does not have sufficient powers to enforce adherence to data protection legislation at present, it is anticipated that the legislative changes consistent with international developments will be proposed and presented

for consideration, probably in 2014.’

We consider that the present investigation highlights the importance of the Supervisor’s role. 3020

He is there to help and assist – nothing to be feared. The value that his office adds on behalf of all

Isle of Man citizens and the merit of extending its powers of enforcement, prompted our final

recommendation, which is:

‘That the Council of Ministers should ensure that legislation to strengthen the enforcement powers of the Data Protection Supervisor is introduced as soon as possible taking into account international developments.’

We are very good to do that, in order to update our financial legislation, our business, our

banking and everything else legislation, in order to comply with international standards, and we 3025


_________________________________________________________________

1196 T130

would strongly suggest that this, to do with the enforcement powers of the Data Protection

Supervisor, should also be pursued as soon as possible.

There is no doubt the Education Minister will have something to say. I would expect him to;

but I would also hope that he would accept all of the recommendations as written, for the benefit

of everybody, really – for the benefit of his own Department, in order to know that it is fully 3030

compliant, and for the assurance of those headteachers who probably are totally unaware that they

are lawfully supposed to be sending more information than they are currently covered for in law.

Also, of course, we live in a litigious society and we do not want litigation being pursued simply

because there is a small matter of not being covered in law.

I beg to move. 3035

The Speaker: I rise to second, Madam President, and reserve my remarks.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Crookall.

3040

The Minister for Education and Children (Mr Crookall): Thank you, Madam President.

We have before us the Report of the Committee and my Department’s response to that Report.

It is my belief that the concerns expressed in that Report, though it is right that they are raised, are

based on some misinterpretation of events in this and other jurisdictions.

Schools, since the early part of last century, have stored pupil data, originally on paper copies 3045

but more recently on a range of laptops, office computers, memory sticks, CDs, all of which are

potentially not secure. My Department has always collected data from schools on a range of

issues: test results, examinations, attendance, health matters and children’s specific needs. This

helps the Department on certain routine centralised functions, such as reporting standards or to

answer specific lines of enquiry, internal use like establishing value for money, or external use to 3050

answer Tynwald Questions. My Department has consistently been given advice from the Attorney

General’s Chambers that it has the authority to do this and any other of its functions, through the

Education Act 2001. Indeed, many of the processes occurred long before the 2001 Act.

It must be remembered that on the Isle of Man, this Department, like many others, functions as

both central Government and has many local authority functions, like the provision of schools. In 3055

order to address issues of efficiency and data security, my Department began a process of creating

a new data store in 2009. In order to do this, the Department applied for an ICT fund support, was

fully involved with ISD throughout, and ensured it met the requirements for data protection as

agreed with the Data Protection Supervisor.

In May 2011, the work of ISD was scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. At that 3060

meeting, reference was made to the pupil database, and it was wrongly inferred that this was

similar to those being developed in England to support the Every Child Matters agenda. This was

an inaccurate inference. There has never been any intention, and certainly no permissions, to share

access to this database with other Departments or agencies.

Madam President, I will just repeat that. In May 2011, the work of ISD was scrutinised by the 3065

Public Accounts Committee. At this meeting, reference was made to the pupil database, and it was

wrongly inferred that this was similar to those being developed in England to support the Every

Child Matters agenda. This was an inaccurate inference. There has never been any intention, nor

permission, to share access to this database with other Departments or agencies.

From this point onwards, the Department began to receive questions and expressions of 3070

concern from one resident of the Isle of Man, whose evidence is in the Social Affairs Policy

Review Committee Report and, as Members know, this also prompted a number of Questions in

this Chamber and in another place.

In our response to the Report, one section attempts to bring clarity, as follows. No-one can

access pupil data without full authorisation and authentication. The database is role controlled. 3075

That is, for example, a headteacher can access data for children in their school only, and can

access nothing else. Access is logged and can be traced. The system meets every requirement for

data protection, and the Department welcomes the input of the Data Protection Supervisor at any

time.

Any reports requested by the Department for management purposes have to be fully authorised 3080

and are completely anonymised. Information on the children is not passed on; it is held by the

school. The central Department has only access to anonymised data by cohort.

Over the last year, through the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee, the Department has

been asked for information about legal advice received. This has been received, checked and

rechecked verbally on a number of occasions, that the advice that was given, with the individual 3085

source, was a matter for the Attorney General’s privilege and the source should not be disclosed.


_________________________________________________________________

1197 T130

Throughout the last year, the Department and its officers have been caught between the

requests of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee and the response of the Attorney

General’s Chambers. This has led to criticism of my Department, which is referred to in

recommendation 1. Essentially, the Report before you challenges what is the validity of the 3090

Attorney General’s Chambers’ advice. Yet my Department, like all others, uses this sort of legal

information and has no reason to doubt its validity.

I know my Chief Executive has apologised for the delay in responding to the request of the

Social Affairs Policy Review Committee for information about the source of our legal view. My

Department wishes it to be known, there is no intention to show disrespect to the authority of the 3095

Committee, but considers itself caught between the requirement of two legal entities.

As indicated above, only one member of the public has made any objection to pupil data store

and in reading the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee Report, this has become entangled

with a view of practice and intended practice from another jurisdiction which was never envisaged

here. 3100

Madam President, therefore, in response to recommendation 1, my Department apologises for

the delay.

In response to recommendation 2, that all work should be stopped, the Department still

believes that it has the legal basis in place for this work, but did suspend any creation of any

additional reports temporarily. However, this is vital management information and vital for our 3105

efficiency and we would wish to continue anonymised reporting of management information.

Therefore, I wish to move an amendment as follows:

‘Delete all words and replace with “That the necessary legislative framework is in place for work on the centralised

pupil database to continue”.’

In response to recommendation 3, my Department has always had access to the data concerned,

though not via this safer, more accountable and efficient method. With the guarantees in place that

this information cannot be misused, I suggest that this be viewed as the Department modernising 3110

and improving its systems in the interests of efficiency. The whole point of this is that it cannot be

downloaded onto JPEG and memory sticks; it is accessed via authentication. It is much safer than

it ever has been, Madam President.

I therefore recommend that Hon. Members should not accept recommendation 3.

I now turn to recommendation 4, which brings into question the Isle of Man’s provision for 3115

data protection. As the Committee’s Report makes reference to, there are international

developments in the field of data protection regulation. The Government has established a working

group, chaired by the Chief Secretary’s Office and including the Data Protection Supervisor, to

monitor these developments and to advise the Council of Ministers on any changes that might be

required to domestic data protection legislation. 3120

There are two main developments which will impact upon the Isle of Man in due course: a

proposed revision to the relevant Council of Europe Convention and the proposal by the European

Commission to replace the current Data Protection Directive with a more stringent regulation.

Both of these moves recognise that, with the advances in technology and global communication,

the current framework for protecting personal data is no longer sufficient. 3125

Proposals for a new regulation are advancing slowly. The EU is not agreed on a single

approach, as some member states believe that a revised directive would be more appropriate.

Moreover, it is uncertain when third countries with what is called an ‘EU adequacy rating’, such as

the Isle of Man, may be required to amend their corresponding legislation as a result of changes in

the EU. 3130

As for the Convention, if amendments are agreed, the UK will still need to be content to ratify

it, before the Council of Ministers can even consider requesting that it be extended to the Isle of

Man. Again, this will not happen in the near future.

In light of the foregoing, the Council of Ministers believes that the time for a wholesale review

of data protection legislation, including the enforcement powers of the Data Protection Supervisor, 3135

would be when the new regulation or amended directive is agreed by the EU and/or the Council of

Europe Convention is ratified by the United Kingdom. The alternative to this approach is

progressing in a piecemeal fashion against a backdrop of an unsettled international regulatory

environment, which could result in Council having to introduce further legislation to align

domestic legislation with new international requirements. 3140

Madam President, the Isle of Man Government always takes account of international

developments in such important areas and is already actively monitoring progress in respect of

these, to ensure that we are best placed to respond accordingly.


_________________________________________________________________

1198 T130

I would therefore like to move the following amendment, which has been circulated to

Members, to recommendation 4: 3145

‘That the Council of Ministers continues to review data protection legislation to ensure that it remains consistent with

international standards.’

Madam President, I beg to move the amendments to recommendations 2 and 4 standing in my

name. Thank you very much.

The President: Hon. Members, before we go any further, I would just seek the Minister’s

assistance in respect of recommendation 2, which I have been trying to get the gist of in his 3150

remarks. It reads to me like a statement, sir, and I am at a loss to quite understand what the

recommendation is. Do you have legislation in place at the moment?

Mr Crookall: Madam President, the Department believes it does have.

3155

The President: So this is a statement and not a recommendation?

Mr Crookall: Very much so – like recommendation 1, Madam President, I suppose it is.

The President: No, recommendation 4 has a recommendation. 3160

Mr Crookall: Recommendation 1, sorry, Madam President – it is more like it, sorry.

The President: I would just take the advice of the Clerk, please, as to whether this is an

appropriate wording for a recommendation. 3165

The President consulted the Clerk.

The President: Hon. Members, as long as you are clear that this is effectively a statement and

an expression of opinion, and it does not actually require any action, I will leave it to the Court to

decide whether recommendation 2 is appropriately worded. You could read it… I think the

Minister is trying to say that Tynwald is of the opinion that the necessary legislative framework is

in place. Is that what you are trying to say, sir? 3170

Mr Crookall: I will accept that, Madam President, most definitely, yes.

The President: Would you care to change the wording of your recommendation to make that

clear, sir? (Laughter) 3175

Mr Crookall: Yes, okay, Madam President, if you are happy with that: ‘That Tynwald is of

the opinion’ –

The President: ‘That the necessary legislative framework’ – 3180

Mr Crookall: – ‘that the necessary legislative framework is in place for work on the

centralised pupil database to continue’.

The President: Yes. 3185

Mr Crookall: Thank you for your clarification.

The President: Other than that, it is simply a statement.

3190

Mr Crookall: Thank you, Madam President. I move:

In recommendation 2, delete all words and replace with ‘That Tynwald is of the opinion that

the necessary legislative framework is in place for work on the centralised pupil database to

continue’; and

in recommendation 4, delete all words after ‘Ministers’ and insert ‘continues to review data

protection legislation to ensure that it remains consistent with international standards’.


_________________________________________________________________

1199 T130

The President: It is not even quite a recommendation now, but we are getting there!

The Hon. Member of Council, Mr Wild.

Mr Wild: Thank you, Madam President. 3195

I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: You cannot reserve your remarks, sir, so if you wish to speak to the

amendment, you must do so now.

Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan. 3200


I will be supporting the original consolidated list of recommendations and I will not be

supporting the Minister’s amendment here.

What struck me from reading all this, and going through the rights and wrongs of it, was that it 3205

seems to me to be pretty clear, as a layman, with no legal experience, that the Department would

have been and should have been required to amend the Education Act, to enable it to have created

this centralised pupil database. It seems to me that, by requiring… having legislation in place for

headteachers, it itself should have put in legislation to ensure that such a database was properly

regulated and that we all understood exactly what the purpose of such a database was, the content 3210

of the information contained therein, and the purpose and method in which it was going to be used.

And I still fail to completely understand on what basis the Department was taking or can verify the

legal advice as being correct, having not been able to find a letter, as such, from the Attorney

General.

The second, key point that I wanted to raise was this issue of the Data Protection Supervisor 3215

and his letter of 12th December 2012, in which he says:

‘Therefore, in my view, every head teacher that provides the Department with access to the entire admission and

attendance registers for their school is contravening the second data protection principle, as the disclosure is not

compatible with the specified and lawful purposes for processing set down in the Regulations.’

I have to say that any private company, or company in the private sector, receiving such a letter

or such information from the Data Protection Supervisor would be scurrying for cover and would

be making absolutely every effort to comply with the recommendation or the information that had

been set down therein, and it appears to me in this instance that we have got one rule for us and 3220

one rule for them, and really that is not acceptable in a modern progressive and fair society.

So overall, Madam President, I think one of the key issues here is that a lot of this possibly

could have been avoided. I think it would not have taken a great deal of thought to have stopped

work and reverted to the Act and brought about a sensible conclusion that both the Policy

Committee and perhaps this Court might have found acceptable. 3225

But certainly, I will be supporting the Policy Committee and their recommendations, and will

be rejecting those brought by the Minister, and hopefully we can actually get a sensible conclusion

to this at a fairly rapid pace going forward.

The President: The Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft. 3230


I too stand to support the recommendations as they have been tabled. I am a bit sorry that I

have had to actually say anything in the debate, because I had hoped that the Minister would

simply accept the recommendations and thank the Committee for the work they have done. I think 3235

it is sad that it has got to this stage, to be honest. But I did make a few notes in case I needed to use

them.

I have read the Report that the Committee produced, and I think it is an excellent Report. A lot

of hard work has gone into it and I would congratulate them on it. It is good to see these Scrutiny

Committees in action. They work effectively, and I think they are helping to build up public trust. 3240

That cannot be overstated, that a lot of the public do not trust Government. These Scrutiny

Committees are going to play a very valuable part in that, but unfortunately not if Government is

going to resist when they actually make very sensible recommendations.

I made a note of a few comments of the Department of Education’s response to this Report. In

paragraph 4.7, it states that the database is a saving, as people do not have to drive round the 3245

Island looking at registers, as they can now just do this on screen. I am actually surprised at that

statement, because I would not have thought that people were constantly driving round the Island

in the first place, looking at these registers in these days, because we have encrypted e-mail


_________________________________________________________________

1200 T130

facilities and all sorts of things – (Interjections) the information that they actually want to send

you, rather than having the database there. 3250

But it is the saving element: I am not sure. I was never sure that the database justified the cost

in the first place and the running costs that are going up and up – but that is a separate issue.

In paragraph 4.10, the Department states:

‘The submission by Mr Llewellyn Jones indicates that […] the Children Bill 2010, later withdrawn, may have been a precursor to Every Child Matters being taken on by the Isle of Man as it has in England.’

This is the gentleman that I believe the Minister referred to earlier as being ‘only one person’.

Now if only one person has picked up on something that is relevant, I think we should be saying 3255

thank you to that one person, instead of saying it is immaterial because it is only one person who is

saying it.

The Department says:

‘The Bill was withdrawn, but this is not the intention, nor could it have ever come into place in the manner feared, due

to the structure of the Isle of Man Government and the independence of the Departments.’

Whilst Every Child Matters may not officially have been taken on, it seems to me that it has

been, because I find its five outcomes are remarkably similar to the five outcomes in the 3260

Government Strategic Plan of 2007-11.

If we have not adopted Every Child Matters, why does it state in the Isle of Man Policing Plan

of 2011-12, on page 4, that one of the key activities is undertaking work to ensure all members of

the Constabulary understand Every Child Matters and that the necessary culture changes are

identified and addressed? 3265

Also, after the Inquiry into the deaths of two children in care, the Government was keen to

improve its systems and decided that integrating Children Services was the way forward. A

Department of Home Affairs officer is on record as stating that we lifted all the principles of Every

Child Matters. So it would seem that it was the intention.

In December 2011, Minister Robertshaw stated his determination to align Social Services to 3270

the principles espoused by Prof. Munro and as this is still a work in progress, five outcomes that

are very similar to Every Child Matters must still by default be in the current regime.

I made a note about the data protection element and again, repeating what Mr Cannan said, a

letter from the Data Protection Supervisor, dated 12th November 2012, sets out clearly that the

Education Act 2001, section 16, is the lawful basis for a register, and that the headteachers and not 3275

the Department of Education and Children are the data controllers of this data.

Given that, I am not sure how the Attorney General’s Chambers can dispute this, when it is in

our own legislation, and it is not helped by the fact that we cannot see what the legal advice is.

That I find quite bizarre. If it is legally privileged, which I am sure it is, all it took was for the

Minister to say, ‘Yes, okay, we will reveal it.’ Then the Attorney General’s Chambers are not 3280

breaking that client confidentiality. I do not see what the problem is with the Department that they

will not allow that legal privilege to at least be shared with a Committee set up by this Court of

Tynwald.

I am again going back to the Education Act: it requires that the Department shall from time to

time prepare and lay before Tynwald statements of policies adopted by it for the performance of 3285

its functions under this Act. So could I ask the Minister to clarify when Tynwald last received such

statements and when he anticipates being able to bring further statements to Tynwald?

Madam President, as I said at the start, I am sure the public are not interested in this point

scoring and we should not be. We just want to see Education run efficiently, in a well mannered

way and legally. If the Department wants to continue with this database, as I said at the beginning, 3290

I think it should just thank the Committee for picking up on an error that it obviously did not spot

and fix the problem. Just a simple… amend the law so that it gives the database the proper legal

basis.

I think this could have all been avoided today and it is very sad. Thank you, Madam President.

3295

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Robertshaw.


Just for clarification, and as somebody who spoke out very strongly indeed about the whole

concept of the Every Child Matters agenda in the previous House, I want to make it clear, as the 3300

Chairman of the Social Policy and Children’s Committee, that really that is the ghost of yesterday.

It is past, it is no longer the case. The Every Child Matters agenda is not part of our work now. It


_________________________________________________________________

1201 T130

has been superseded by the Eileen Munro work and I do not want the worries of yesterday to

impact upon any decision made here today. I think it is very important that we continue to let our

schools run efficiently against the backdrop of the exchange of anonymised information and 3305

password-accessed data.

So I hope we do not lose focus of the important issues. As the previous speaker said, it is very

important that our schools run efficiently. If we go the wrong way today, it is going to impact

upon that and I would ask Members to consider that point.

3310

The President: The Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Watterson): Thank you, Madam President.

I see a bit of a problem here, in that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, in terms of

the views on either side which seem to be irreconcilable. Like Mr Cannan, I come from a 3315

relatively lay perspective, I am not a qualified advocate, but where I have come at this from is that

legal advice was actually sought by the Department of Education when they were pursuing this

policy. That legal advice says that they have the vires to collect the same information that they

always have done, but in a different way.

What I would ask the Caairliagh of the Committee is: did the Data Protection Supervisor take 3320

legal advice on this matter? I do not believe he is a qualified advocate. So if I was the Minister for

Education, I would take legal advice over someone with no legal qualifications. That is not to take

away from the fact that he knows his stuff in his field, but that is not legal advice. That is not

going to have the same weight in court as something that has been provided to you –

3325

Mr Henderson: By a professionally trained person.

Mr Watterson: Absolutely, and I would absolutely not contest the fact that he is a

professionally trained individual with a significant amount of experience in his field; but he is not

a lawyer, and when it comes to the scenario that Mrs Cannell painted, the Hon. Member for 3330

Douglas East, I know who I would rather have sat next to me, between the Data Protection

Supervisor and a qualified advocate.

So I support my colleague here, who is in a bit of a no-win situation because the Committee

and the Data Protection Supervisor, neither of whom are legally qualified, have one view, which is

contrary to the view of an advocate. 3335

I am also slightly sympathetic to the Department’s stance on legal privilege, and whilst I

completely concur with the Committee that eight months is not really an acceptable time to come

back with an answer, legal privilege is not this binary thing that can be waived automatically by

the Department, and we can get into a debate about Attorney General’s privileges, as a Crown

officer, which is separate from a standard advocate-client privilege, which is quite a separate thing. 3340

Client privilege you can waive, you can then put that document in the public domain, and…

As I say, I am coming at this as a non-expert myself, but I am just saying that this matter is far

more complicated than is perhaps being made out in some very simple and black-and-white terms

by Mr Cannan and the Caairliagh. So I would perhaps ask Members to reflect on that and to think

if they were in the Minister for Education’s shoes, what would they do between legal advice on the 3345

one hand and advice from someone with experience but no legal qualification on the other.

For that reason, I support my colleague, the Hon. Member for Peel and the amendment that is

before you, Hon. Members.

The President: Lord Bishop. 3350

The Lord Bishop: Thank you, Madam President.

I am a bear of very little brain and I see that recommendation 2 unamended says that the

necessary legal framework is not in place. Recommendation 2 amended says the necessary legal

framework is in place. 3355

You cannot make a decision on the basis of two contrary statements. It is not the business of

this Court to make a decision on the basis of which one of those two statements is true. It is

impossible, Madam President, for us to make a decision until we know which of those statements

is actually true.

3360

The President: Hon. Members, it might assist us if we get a view from our Acting Attorney

General on this issue.


_________________________________________________________________

1202 T130

Several Members: Hear, hear.

3365

The Acting Attorney General: Madam President, Hon. Members, with your permission, if I

could just firstly deal and make comment with reference to recommendation 1 and the delay which

was highlighted, I would like to make it clear that, to the extent that Chambers was the cause, or a

cause, in the confusion with reference to that delay – a delay which really caused the Department

to, in turn, delay in making available the advice which had been given – I unreservedly apologise 3370

to this Court.

Following my appointment to Chambers, I have discovered in Chambers some confusion or an

issue with reference to client privilege and the privilege of the Attorney General, in whose shoes I

stand. It is a matter which I am having to address and I am addressing that as soon as I possibly

can to help my law officers and to help this Court, and it is my intention to work with the Clerk of 3375

Tynwald on this to hopefully get to the stage where I can give you and the Department clear

guidance as to the effect of those two separate issues: so that is the issue of client privilege, and

the issue of the Attorney General’s own privilege.

That confusion, as I say, has caused some reticence amongst the law officers to actually come

down, I would say, off the fence, to really help the Departments address issues as and when they 3380

arise. I am not being critical of them. I can understand the problems that they have had from time

to time, when they have addressed that.

So I hope that is of some general guidance to the Court. It is a matter which is being

considered. I will get that advice out as soon as I possibly can, but certainly in the context of

delay, I entirely agree that it was unsatisfactory and we should have taken a more positive stance 3385

to try and resolve that issue more quickly to help the Department.

On the general issue as to what appears to be a difference of opinion, with reference to the law,

I would like to remind the Court of a Question before the July 2012 Tynwald, when Tynwald

asked, through the Speaker, why the Department of Education and Children’s centralised pupil

data system has been allowed to operate in the Isle of Man without supporting legislation, when 3390

the equivalent national pupil database in England and Wales requires specific primary and

secondary legislation.

The answer given – and I would confirm that I have reviewed this since, in preparation for

today – is that the need for supporting legislation in England for the national pupil database stems

from the fact that English education authorities are separate corporate bodies and are part of local 3395

government, whilst the Department for Education is part of central government. Accordingly,

legislation is needed to impose the requirement upon those employed by the education authorities

to collect, collate and communicate the data required by that Department. So that is the position in

England.

By contrast with that position, the Manx education system is almost entirely provided by the 3400

Department of Education and Children. There is therefore no need for legislation, as it would

effectively be regulating itself.

The Department does not seek pupil data on children being educated in the private sector, at

schools such as King William’s College or the Buchan and, accordingly, coercive powers to obtain

such data are unnecessary. 3405

That is the law today here on the Island, so we do not need any further legislation or legislative

framework to actually support the pupil database that has been obtained and its use.

The Data Protection Supervisor clearly has expressed a different view, and all I can say is that,

on careful consideration of that, I do uphold the view of Chambers, that we disagree and we stand

by the advice which we have given to the Department. I hope that assists. 3410

Thank you.

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

Mr Turner: Thank you, Madam President. 3415

I was going to make the point which has just been made by the learned Attorney, that the

schools are, in fact, the Department, as we have just heard. I will not go over those points again.

The central database, or the central Department, does not have access to individual data. It only

accesses cohort data, which is anonymous, as the Minister said in his speech. I think that is the key

point, that this data is already being collated and used within the Department, but using all 3420

different methods, and it surely would seem sensible that… the schools – which again I suppose

you could almost say they are almost like Divisions of the Department – are all collating them in

different ways, so a centralised way of putting that data onto a system surely makes more sense

than operating 35 or 40 different methods of doing it.


_________________________________________________________________

1203 T130

Of course, the whole point of this is the data cannot be lost, as the Minister said. At the 3425

moment, they are brought in on memory sticks, CD-ROMs or however else, and it was mentioned

about e-mail before: of course, there are issues with e-mail. Only those with the actual authority

will be able to access the data, with the correct permissions and, of course, with that comes the

ability to be able to search to see who has accessed that data and when, which I think is also very

important for the audit of when a complaint does come in. Investigations can take place into who 3430

has been accessing the data, what level have they been accessing the data, and then an

investigation can find out what they accessed it for. So there are going to be the correct

permissions in place.

The Department has worked with the Data Protection Supervisor and did challenge his

response, to which the response was, ‘This is only my opinion.’ As we have heard from the 3435

learned Attorney, it is an opinion that certainly the Department does not agree with and Chambers

have also given their opinion.

So I think the impression seems to have been given in the debate that the schools are separate

entities from the Department and somehow the Department is requesting this data from external

operations, but I think it is very important that the differences between the education system in the 3440

UK and the Isle of Man are recognised.

I must say, we had one of the sessions last year with the Council of Ministers, looking at the

Scope and Structure of Government, and one of the things that I brought up in that session we had

was the practice of constantly putting arm’s-length operations in place, creating all these agencies

to oversee other agencies. Most of them have been quite a disaster in the United Kingdom, and 3445

they are actually going the reverse now, and getting rid of some of these things.

So, I would certainly hate to see a stage where we then say we are going to separate the

operation of schools from the Department as the regulator. I think in this case, the Department,

being the policy drivers and the operators of the schools… I think it is a tried and tested system. I

think it works. I would hate to see us go down the stage of separating the Department from the 3450

operation, and having some sort of arm’s-length operation.

We do have, of course, the Education Council, who are appointed people who are there and the

members of that Council do a great job. We political Members attend the Education Council

meetings. They really put us through the mill on scrutiny. We have a very good relationship, it is a

robust relationship with them, and I think they are an appropriate body to oversee what the 3455

Department is doing.

So I hope I have answered some of the points from the Department’s point of view. I will be

obviously supporting the amendments in the name of the Minister for Education.

The President: The Hon. Mr Speaker. 3460

The Speaker: Madam President, I am extremely worried about what I have heard so far, very

worried indeed. I shall make some general points and then come onto the specifics of the

Department’s written response, which was circulated, and the Minister’s remarks.

But the first thing I want to say is that the muddle over the wording of recommendation 2 3465

should give us great, great concern. Why do I say that? Because it is at odds with what the

Department’s stated intention is.

If you turn to the response to the First Report, at top of page 6, paragraph 4.7:

‘In deference to Recommendation 2, until this matter is resolved, the development of other forms of reporting have

been halted.’

Why? Because they did not have confidence in the legal status of the process.

The recommendation, as it was originally written… the amendment, as originally written to the 3470

recommendation:

‘That the necessary legislative framework is in place for work on the centralised pupil database to continue.’

– I read that as saying that the necessary legislative framework is in place, as it should be in place,

in order for work on the centralised pupil base to continue, and I think the Committee might just

have accepted that, but it has clearly now said… and I am not clear from the learned Attorney’s

remarks whether the Department has taken further legal advice to advise the Court this afternoon 3475

that it is a statement of opinion that this necessary legislative framework is already in place. That

is what is being said: a statement of opinion that the legislative framework is in place and therefore

work can continue. The original wording said, as I read it, the necessary legislative framework

ought to be in place, or should be in place; but that is not what is being said now.


_________________________________________________________________

1204 T130

Why have we got a statement of opinion that the work is continuing regardless, when the 3480

written response said that development of other forms of reporting had been halted? And I am

afraid I am none the wiser from the learned Attorney’s point of view just expressed.

The other advice from the Education Minister, to reject recommendation 3 altogether…

Recommendation 3 says that there should be thorough consultation with Tynwald Members,

parents, teachers and other interested parties. Well, whatever legislative process framework is in 3485

place in the Department’s view, I can assure you it has not been the subject of any consultation. So

the Department is clearly saying consultation is not necessary. It would be. Consultation for

everything else, primary or secondary legislation, is necessary. It is matter… It is. We are

contacted all the time. So I am extremely worried about these amendments to the

recommendations. 3490

I have to say, Madam President, that I had hoped and expected that the four recommendations

of the Report would be approved by the Department and the Council of Ministers, and that we

might see some additional amendments, perhaps, at best; but these amendments radically recast

the recommendations. They are saying that what is not true is true, and that is wrong, and I think

we should reflect very, very carefully this afternoon. 3495

I endorse what Mrs Beecroft said about the value of these Scrutiny Committees and I can

appreciate that it is perhaps that the Department and the Council of Ministers are not particularly

comfortable with a Report that apparently challenges the legal status of a Department’s policy, but

Policy Review Committees are in place to assist the good governance of the Island, and therefore

this Report should have been welcomed, not feared. 3500

It will not be the first time that we have had problems in social policy, the status of that policy

and its robustness. The Child Care Inquiry, for example, a very, very expensive inquiry… very

expensive, £2 million with 180 or 200 recommendations, some of which were calling for a

legislative basis, proper secondary regulation to be put in place to primary legislation. I would

simply say that Tynwald Scrutiny Committees certainly have the potential to be an effective form 3505

of scrutiny and I believe the public have got to have confidence that any potential problem, such as

we have seen in the past, can be forestalled by this scrutiny system. So please listen carefully to

what this and other reports say.

This Report is a product of a committee system that is trying to help improve the performance

of public services and not, I hasten to say, needlessly attacking Ministers. The particular issue that 3510

we are talking about happens to be data protection and developments in the field of data protection

– a subject that might be considered quite obscure and not of mass interest – and the Minister has

referred to one member of the public who has pursued matters relating to the Every Child Matters

agenda, and I will come to that at the end

What has happened here is that the pupil base has run ahead of commercial technology and has 3515

been developed – without Tynwald knowledge or authority, by the way, not the subject of a policy

statement, which the Education Act enables a Department to bring to Tynwald for approval. That

has not happened. That policy surfaced publicly during the hearing, three or four years ago, of a

particular Select Committee on ISD, I think it was, when evidence was being given by an officer

of the Department of Education about developments in information gathering. 3520

So it is a policy that has not been borne out of a debate in this place, unlike other policies

which are approved and take the form either of primary legislation, if it is to go to the branches, or

secondary regulation and orders that have to be approved, usually with full public consultation,

and then they are in statute.

There has been no formal policy creation for a pupil database. The cart is before the horse and 3525

this debate is therefore key to the principle that all policy should be backed by statute or be the

product of enabling provisions in primary law, backed up, where necessary, by secondary

legislation. We are passing secondary legislation all time. Why would we do that if a general

enabling provision of an Education Act, or any other Act, is deemed sufficient to give a legislative

framework? There is no legislative framework. There is section 1 of the Education Act, giving a 3530

general generic provision in the eyes of the Department, and I will say more about that shortly.

As a democracy, I think we should be very worried about some of the things we have heard

today. I thought all public policy had to be established by Tynwald with the necessary statutory

underpinning.

We have heard about the differences with the English and Welsh education systems, and their 3535

pupil database is fully covered by statute. However, unlike the UK, where Ministers have recourse

to Royal prerogative powers, Isle of Man Departments only have primary and secondary

legislation, and I think that makes us more democratic as a result. But the problem is that where

there are non-statutory or ultra vires measures in place that are arguably sufficiently… not borne

out of any debate, and over which there is no accountability, there is no cost control… There is no 3540


_________________________________________________________________

1205 T130

structure at all that has been borne out of a policy-making exercise, and I think that should worry

us.

I think the public might well accept an anonymised database for statistical purposes if it was

just a factual list of children being held by the Department, but the issue that is contentious and

engages public sentiment by some is that there is a named register of children with, as the mover 3545

of the motion said, items of potentially sensitive and personal data attached. I think the way that is

handled should be a matter of concern for us all, for the reasons that have been spelt out earlier in

the debate.

Then we have the general provisions of the Act and the claim, which has been reiterated by the

learned Attorney, that general provision of section 1 of the Education Act 2001 is adequate. That 3550

section says:

‘(1) It is the duty of… ("the Department") — (a) to promote the education of persons, and in particular persons under the age of 18 years, resident in the Island; and

(b) for that purpose to provide efficient and comprehensive educational services in the Island.’

So that, as I say, has been interpreted as a generic provision that is giving the Department

authority for much more than it was considered by the Act, and if that principle is allowed to be

extended, then many other provisions of the Act could be overridden and many new policy

provisions could be created, and that is true of other Acts. 3555

Some of our legislation, primary legislation, needs updating. The Finance Act 1958, for

example, is the authority for the provision of certain pensions. No detail secondary provision is in

place.

So I think we must be very careful to be relying on a generic provision of primary law to give

authority to do something complex and detailed over which the public are concerned. I dare say it 3560

would be convenient for Departments, Ministers and chief executives to have their will

implemented by general provisions in an Act, but our role in Tynwald is to ensure that the

people’s voice is heard.

This generic provision which has led the Departments to adopt the curious stance that the

Department and the schools are a single entity... I do not accept that. Policy is created by civil 3565

servants, and in the case of education, implemented by public servants, who are teachers. I accept,

in corporate terms, the functions of local education authorities are discharged in England and

Wales separately from the Department of State, but I think the proof of what I am saying is already

recognised in the Act by virtue of… and I will give you an example – sections 5 and 16 of the Act,

which contain enabling provisions. 3570

If you turn to the Report, on page 56, and you see Question 11, which was posed in Tynwald

Court in May 2012 about the scope of the pupil database, the particular areas it was designed to

cover, you will see 19 phases of data collection, ranging... They are all there, I will not go through

them – looked-after children, young carers, teenage parents, equipment allocation, session

attendance. Of those 19, five are underpinned by secondary legislation; the other 14 are not. Why 3575

would those five have to be the subject of secondary legislation? It is to create the legislative

framework to allow headteachers to transmit admission information, registration information, from

the schools to the Department. That is why we have got 2004 Regulations to cover that activity.

Why would other areas of activity involving the transmission of Department activity, like

transmission of data, not need to be covered by secondary legislation? 3580

The difficulty the Department has, and it is spelled out in the Report on pages 30 and 39 in the

submission of the Data Protection Supervisor… He is an expert on the implementation of the Data

Protection Act and he has worked with the implementation of that Act for some 10 years, so he

does know what he is talking about. He says, at the bottom of page 38:

‘… ultimately it would be for the Court…’

– he does not mean Tynwald Court, he means the High Court – 3585

‘… to determine whether the Education Act 2001 does provide the power to collect all the personal data in Centralised Pupil Data System, but the Supervisor has difficulty in matching all the answers given to Question 11 with the

provisions of the Act.’

Those answers being the 19 Department activities, five of which the Department only has

regulatory authority for.

He goes on, on page 39… and he is an expert, bear in mind, on data collection and what the

law allows who are data controllers. The Department and each school, he says, at paragraph 16:


_________________________________________________________________

1206 T130

‘... are separate “data controllers” and each has a separate register entry in the statutory Register of Data Controllers maintained by the Supervisor.

17. The fact that each school is a separate data controller is further evidenced in the Education Act 2001, where

sections 5 and 5A, in particular, make provision for the government of schools and the relationship between schools and [the Department].

18. The answer to Question 11 in Tynwald…’

– that May Answer I referred you to – 3590

‘… states for parts vi, vii and ix…’

– that is to do with admission criteria –

‘… the Education Act (Registration of Pupils) Regulations 2004 […] provides the powers to collect the data referred

to. […] 19. An examination of the Regulations shows that Regulation 2 places an obligation upon the head teacher to maintain

an admission and attendance register, while regulation 9 specifies the summary returns that a head teacher must submit

to the Department on a monthly basis.’

And here is the crucial part, Hon. Members:

‘20. The Regulations do not make any provision for the head teacher to provide all the personal data in the attendance

and admission registers to [the Department]. […] 23. Again, it would be for the Court to determine but it seems that the Regulations do not provide for the head teacher

to provide to [the Department] all the personal data in the attendance and admission registers and therefore such disclosures may contravene the second principle.’

– in data protection principles.

This is from the Data Protection Supervisor, who advises Government on data protection

matters. He is telling us that those Regulations of 2004 do not give the authority to headteachers to 3595

provide the information that the Department want. It is not sufficient.

Paragraph 25:

‘It appears therefore that there is a risk that the DEC could be found to be holding information to which it is not legally

entitled. […] 27. However, although the processing may not be currently lawful it seems that [the Department] could produce a new

set of Regulations that, subject to Tynwald approval, would make the processing lawful.’

That is why our recommendation 2 said, ‘For the protection of the headteachers, get your

legislative framework in place.’

I have no doubt that this section 1 of the primary law is the enabling power for the Department 3600

to do what it wants to do, but there is no regulation to back it up. And the difficulty we have – and

the Supervisor is saying it is for the High Court to ultimately determine – is that the database

needs to become legal by an amendment to the Act to create enabling provisions followed by the

necessary order specifying the provision in detail. I thought, in reading the Department’s original

response that I quoted at the start, that that is what they were going to do. They were going to halt 3605

development, meantime.

As it stands at the moment, the database – and with the greatest respect to the learned Attorney

– need not be considered mandatory. It would be for a court of law to decide and any parent could,

I think, rightly refuse to have their child on the database and could expect, via doleance, to have a

court reinforce that. That is what the Supervisor has said. That would reflect very badly, as the 3610

mover said, not least in international terms, where we must be seen to be ultra-careful and we must

be very clear that we do not vote for something this afternoon that does not have a necessary

statutory underpinning open to challenge.

Now, there is the odd reluctance to publish the full advice of the Attorney General, who has

considered certainly section 1 of the Education Act. We do not know what the advice was about 3615

the legality of the database with respect to the Data Protection Act, because we have not seen the

advice and we apparently cannot get it. We want to know, does it comply with the Data Protection

Act? The Education Act gives an enabling power, but does it comply with the data protection law?

The Supervisor of that law certainly does not think so.

It would appear that the Department was not confident enough in their legal position to 3620

continue the work on the database, and the Department made mention of further primary and

secondary legislation which Tynwald should endorse by approving the Committee’s

recommendations. That was in the original written response. I do not want to keep repeating

myself, but the amendment to recommendation 2 is telling the Court... is saying that the power is

already there, when it clearly is not. 3625


_________________________________________________________________

1207 T130

Mr Watterson: In your opinion.

The Speaker: Further, briefly, Madam President, the detail of the written response, I think, by

the Department: it is important because there are a number of contradictions in it. First of all, 3630

turning to the response in paragraph 1.3:

‘The advantage of this type of data storage is that composite data which does not identify the individual child, can be extracted to show the impact of measures or to report on the progress of particular groups of children, such as those

born after April each year or those who are in care.’

So, by default, there is a named record of every child, which is dis-identified for specific

purposes. The named record is the key. If the Department wanted an anonymous database for

statistical purposes, I do not think we would be having this debate. It is a creation of a named

record, with potentially sensitive and personal information, which is contentious. 3635

The Department goes on to say, and the Minister said again, very clearly this afternoon:

‘No one can access individual pupil data without full authorisation and authentication and a high security level is

needed to do so.’

But who holds the authorisation and what are the thresholds in place? We do not know,

because there are no regulations that spell it out.

‘The system has been set up to meet every requirement indicated by the Data Protection Supervisor who can request

information from the Department at any time.’

Yes, he can request information but has no powers of statutory inspection. That is what

recommendation 4 was about. He has told us he has no powers. Until he has actual oversight of the 3640

database in statute, many issues remain undetermined and the solution would be for him to be

given full access to the database to determine exactly how it fits with the Data Protection Act.

Then we have the question of legal advice and the manner in which it was obtained. The

Department says, at paragraph 2.2, it was indicated at the meeting of the Social Policy Committee

in May 2012: 3645

‘… that the advice we have received from the Attorney General’s Chambers was that the 2001 Act was sufficient…’

It might be just splitting words, but actually, at that session no mention was made of the

Attorney General. It was legal advice – ‘the advice I have had is that there is a right to collect the

data’. That really ties in with what came next and that was to do with legal advisers.

‘Turning now to the opinion of the [Data Protection Supervisor] that we are acting outside our legislative powers, the Department would again refer you to the response from the Attorney General to a question from Mr Speaker given in

Tynwald on the 10th July 2012 where he concludes “accordingly coercive powers to obtain such data are

unnecessary”. The Department has been advised that the powers we have are sufficient by our legal advisers’.

Now, the plural of ‘legal advisers’ could imply by default that there is additional advice that

the Department has. That is why we need to see the advice. We need to see all the advice, and the 3650

release of advice ought to be a simple matter of getting the Attorney General’s permission.

The Tynwald Proceedings Act means that the Department is not required to produce legal

advice, but it is not prevented from doing. They would certainly not be breaking the law if they

published the advice as the recipient of that advice.

The Department says: 3655

‘It would in any case have been impossible to say more than had already been said in the answers given to Tynwald

earlier in the year.’

So why would the Department not want to publish advice of its own volition that has in any

case been published in a Tynwald Written Answer? It really is most mysterious.

The Department also points out in their written submission this question of legal privilege,

which is a separate issue, but very important. It has been touched on in the debate.

‘Any legal advice contained in this communication may be subject to Attorney General's privilege, in which case neither the fact of consultation nor the opinion or advice given may be disclosed outside government without the

express consent of the Attorney General.’


_________________________________________________________________

1208 T130

We have been here before. The Economic Committee, as Mr Singer has said, and which Mr 3660

Quayle is on, were concerned about it, that this Tynwald Committee was not able to test the legal

basis for policy that it was enquiring into, because it could not get access to the legal advice. How

can Tynwald do its job if its Committees cannot see the official advice given to Government

Departments on the discharge of the policy?

The same thing with the MEA Committee Report. The MEA Select Committee tried to seek 3665

legal advice – the basis of the legal advice in relation to the Chief Executive and expense claims

and questions of prosecutions that did not go ahead. We were denied that advice on the matter of

legal privilege. It is no wonder that the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald is considering this

matter. It was referred to it by the Economic Committee and the quicker we get this nonsense

sorted out, the better. We will see the precise legal advice that the Department is acting upon. 3670

Then there is the question of a consultation with the Data Protection Supervisor. Their

response in paragraph 4.3:

‘From the beginning of the process and in full consultation with the provider, ISD and, where necessary, the DPS were

requested to advise to ensure that this information is properly handled.’

Paragraph 4.4, they are confident they are not breaking any of the principles; but that the text...

and when you read it, it shows clearly that the Data Protection Supervisor was only selectively

admitted to the consultation process. He was certainly engaged at the beginning, in 2008-09. You 3675

can see it is in the e-mails, in the back of the Report. He told the Committee he was not intensively

involved, in any shape or form, since that point. If he had been, he jolly well would not have

written a critical litany of the Department – which he has.

Now, Madam President, the Department, I believe, are not actually sufficiently confident that

the Attorney General will protect their position. I think it is clear from their written statement that 3680

they were halting development of the database until the legislative provisions were in place, until

there was an amendment to the Education Act brought forward – an Amendment Act to give the

primary wherewithal – but that position has been contradicted by the Minister this afternoon, on

how we should interpret the recommendation. So I would advise that you do not accept the

amendment to the recommendation 2. 3685

Again, the Department says that the schools are the Department. I think I have demonstrated

that if the schools and the Department were the same, there would not be a necessity to have

specific regulation governing some of the activities.

I will conclude by – (Interjection) Well, I am sorry it is taking so long, but I think there’s quite

a lot to think about. (Mrs Cannell: Hear, hear.) I think it is a very important debate. 3690

Now, the Minister made reference to the submission by the individual mentioned in the Report

about the Every Child Matters policy, and the fact that it was never envisaged here and that the

inferences were all wrong. I would just point out the fact of some inconsistency here. The Chief

Secretary’s website clearly shows that the Every Child Matters five outcomes – staying safe; being

healthy; enjoying and achieving; making a positive contribution; and prospering – are in use. They 3695

are pasted up on the walls of some of the schools. They are also in GPs’ surgeries.

The Minister for Social Care, by contrast, advised about the fact that the Munro Review, which

again the Department is saying, as the name suggests, is only a review and it is not a new social

policy – and that is the review that pointed out the flaws and the inadequacies of the Every Child

Matters strategy, which has been dropped by the government across… Minister Robertshaw 3700

referred to the findings and report by Prof. Munro which was published and which many Hon.

Members will be aware I support.

So children’s policy in the Isle of Man: I think there is cause to explore the consistency with

which we are applying it and the information that is being given out, but certainly, Madam

President, I think what we have heard this afternoon should give us great cause for anxiety in the 3705

lack of clarity that exists over the question of vires for what the Department wants to do. There

will be no problem, once the policy has been consulted upon, if it contains sufficient safeguards to

enable the Department to do its job of gathering the information it needs to function properly and

have schools function properly. No-one wants to stop the Department doing that; but the way they

have gone about it, under the radar, is simply not acceptable, and the lack of clarity of view, with 3710

the Data Protection Supervisor… and he could not have been clearer. The man who administers

the Act could not have been clearer in what he has said in the Report.

So I urge the Court in full to accept the recommendations as printed in the Order Paper.



_________________________________________________________________

1209 T130



I will keep my response to this short, because the matter I want to just talk about has been 3720

mentioned by the hon. mover and Mr Speaker, but there are a couple of points that I wish to

emphasise.

I was pleased to hear the Attorney General’s comments and his apologies, because we now

have here two reports to Scrutiny Committees to this Hon. Court, and in both cases there has been

apparent obstruction to parliamentary committee duties when reasonable requests for documents 3725

relevant and important to an inquiry have been refused on grounds of client confidentiality, legal

professional privilege. This is a very serious situation when the legitimate work and duties of the

parliamentary Scrutiny Committees is being prevented.

We need full co-operation now from the Attorney General’s department to clarify this matter

with the Standing Orders Committee. I hope that he and the Standing Orders Committee will take 3730

note and guidance from the parliamentary committee systems in the United Kingdom and their

access to information, where they have free access, which is most important to the freedom and

the work of the parliamentary committees in general.

Mr Quayle and Mrs Cannell: Hear, hear. 3735

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

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I believe it is a very interesting debate. I think the point that we need

to ask the Caairliagh, when she comes back, is why didn’t the Committee takes its own distinct 3740

legal advice. I think that is one of the issues that needs to be…

The Data Protection Supervisor, whom I hold in the highest regard, is a man of honour and

decency, and I have nothing but praise for him – and coming from me, that is quite a rare being

indeed, to be perfectly honest with you – but, at the end of the day, he is not an advocate, and I do

believe that that issue needs to be answered. 3745

It is one of the rare occasions where I am with my colleague in South Douglas on part of the

proposals... I totally agree with you, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that the fact that… Whether

it is one person or it is a hundred people, it is about whether it is right or wrong. I know that I have

had that allegation referred to this morning, and I got the assurances that we are not going to end

up with a white elephant from Minister Gawne over the Food Park. The fact is whether it is one or 3750

whether it is a hundred, it is about whether the person is right or wrong.

I feel that what we need to also understand is that the Department of Education... and I am

saying this as a former Education Minister, so you are going to say I am only covering up for the

Government, but I hope (Interjection) most of the ones know me, as far as my integrity is

concerned. The fact was that the Department actually believed the advice of the Attorney General, 3755

and quite rightly so: that is the advice. I might not be the greatest fan of the Attorney General’s

Department, I may have some concerns, but that is the legal advice as far as executive

Government is concerned – long before the present Attorney General turned up in this Chamber,

may I add.

The situation is that consultations were not necessary, as far as the Department was concerned, 3760

because they had already been taking place, as far as safer methods are concerned. Actually, I am

led to believe, by the Department of Education, that it is out of politeness to the Social Affairs

Committee that requests for today’s debate… but the Department decided to set up no reports until

after the debate has happened.

I think it is important that people need to realise that factor, and the factor is yes, when I was 3765

Minister for Education the database was set up, and I know that it was fully checked and it was

agreed to and it met all the requirements of data protection. I think that is important, that Hon.

Members need to realise that we consulted. We were told that, legally, we had done everything

correctly as far as that issue is concerned.

I think the situation is that the problem that the Department had when I was there, and I am 3770

sure it has now, was that the legal advice as far as… It is alright the Speaker going on about this

thing, and on many points I totally agree, and I actually agree with the previous speaker as well –

it is an absolute disgrace that a parliamentary Committee cannot see legal advice. It has to be

sorted out, and I am glad that the chink of light that has been produced, through many years of

trying to get a parliamentary assembly that actually does the function of a parliament and holds the 3775

executive to account… and these Committees are the birth of that and should be encouraged.


_________________________________________________________________

1210 T130

The fact is that maybe the day has come that the Committees should not only have that

privileged advice from the Attorney General’s department, allowing for the fact that the taxpayer

has paid for it, but they maybe need to be looking at the issue of whether they should have their

own legal advice. I know I had some issues about legal protection for ordinary Members against 3780

vexatious attack through the courts system. I want better protection for that.

These are all issues that do need to be addressed, and I believe that this Report and the Report

that the Member, Mr Singer, talked about before, are all on the way of the evolutionary process, so

that we do not end up with a situation where everything is being nodded through and then we have

found ourselves now where basically the party is over, as far as the good times are concerned, and 3785

we are now going to have to govern without being able to throw money at it.

I believe that the Speaker does rather protest too much as far as this input is concerned. He is

right to talk about the Childcare Report. It is a disgrace that we have still got recommendations,

several years down the line, that still have not been implemented, and that is basically down to us,

as legislators, not holding the executive to account. But I would hate Hon. Members to think that 3790

somehow that is something to do with this issue that is in front of us today. I do not believe it is. I

believe that we have a situation in front of this Hon. Court, that we should not be here today on the

basis that we have not got the legal advice that the Department had on this issue, and they should

have had. I hope that when the Standing Orders Committee sees that, they will address that issue.

Can I also say that the advice when I was there, as I have written down here, to I think it was 3795

the Speaker… The advice that we were given was that we were working within the proper legal

framework, from the Attorney General’s department. I believe that that is the bottom line.

I feel aggrieved that the Committee has been treated so shoddily with not being able to get the

full disclosure of the information, and I can only say that I hope that they will consider this issue

as a right – not as a privilege, but a right – of Committees when professional advice… Whether it 3800

is the Attorney General, whether it is the wood butcher, the consultant, or whatever it is, we need

to get away from this closing ranks and hiding things. I think, to a certain degree, the Department

has brought it on itself and the Council of Ministers for not addressing that issue.

I would also just say that the information is on a role controlled basis. The headteacher can see

the pupil’s information, including personal; the psychologist can see the name and his own advice, 3805

but nothing else; and the chief officer, being the chief executive, has oversight and cannot access

the individual pupil data as far as the identity is concerned. That is the position we are at at the

present time; at least that was the position that I was aware of when I was Minister for Education.

With my brief interlude of being Minister for Education, that was the situation.

I think it is important, Eaghtyrane, and I think the Minister for Education is wrong when he 3810

says it is only one person. Many things have started out by only being one person, many of the

fundamental things that are the norm in society today, from the abolishment of slavery, to the issue

of… I remember talking to one of the leaders as far as gay rights were concerned, and he described

that when it started out in the 1960s, there were bigger bus queues than there was a gay rights

organisation. Today, we accept it as a normal part of life, which it should be. So I think the idea 3815

that, just because it is one person, that does not count… In a democracy, everybody is important.

I have to say, Eaghtyrane, that I feel that recommendation 2 of the Shirveishagh son Ynsee, the

Minister for Education, is just stating the fact that the reality is that the necessary legislative

framework is in place for the work of a centralised pupil database and should continue. I think that

that is what… and, unfortunately, I think, for the Standing Committee, the situation is unless they 3820

have got legal advice to the contrary, then I feel that we have no other choice but to support the

Council of Ministers on this issue, because I am afraid they are right – not as the ex-Minister for

Education; that is the legal advice. The Data Protection Supervisor I hold in very high regard, but

he cannot give a Standing Committee legal advice.

The issue of the second amendment, as far as recommendation 4 is concerned... I really would 3825

like to have some clarity why I should support the Council of Ministers over the recommendation

of the Social Affairs Policy Review. I believe that we should be supporting recommendation 2, but

whether we should be supporting recommendation 4… I do hope that Council of Ministers will be

considering at the next meeting that it is absolutely wrong that, twice now, we have had a situation

where they have hidden behind legal privilege as far as their advice is concerned. The taxpayer is 3830

paying for this. You are the representatives of the taxpayer, as the parliament of the Isle of Man,

and you should have that thing. I cannot say any more about the issue.

I hope that reassures Members that there is not some sort of conspiracy theory as far as the data

protection is concerned. We might have the rare opportunity where I am voting a different way

than the Hon. Member for South Douglas, my party colleague. The fact is that is the legal advice. 3835

Until it is changed, they are the ones.


_________________________________________________________________

1211 T130

I hope Hon. Members will support the Shirveishagh Ynsee. Recommendation 2 is only stating

what is the law as far as what is being recognised at the present time.

The President: Hon. Members, I think this is now time to take a break. The break will be until 3840

25 past five, and the next Member to speak will be the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Crowe.

The Court adjourned at 4.59 p.m.

and resumed its sitting at 5.25 p.m.

Social Affairs Policy Review Committee

First Report and recommendations

Debate continued


The President: Please be seated, Hon. Members.

We carry on with our debate. The Hon. Member of Council, Mr Crowe.

Mr Crowe: Thank you, Madam President. 3845

I have read the full Report, which I found very interesting. I have also read the response from

the Department, again which tries to clarify a number of issues. But I think the debate, which is

very interesting and very enlightening in parts, comes down to a close look at the actual

recommendations we are going to vote on.

As for recommendation 1, I think the Minister and the learned Attorney have both apologised 3850

for the delay, so there is no problem accepting that.

I think the whole Report stands or falls on recommendation 2, because if you agree with the

learned Attorney, then you would vote for the Department; if you agree with the Data Protection

Supervisor, you would vote with the Committee.

So the whole thing stands or falls on recommendation 2, because recommendation 3 talks 3855

about updated legislation, but if you have existing legislation which stands and works, then

recommendation 3 becomes superfluous.

As for recommendation 4, that is ambivalent as to whether it concerns future legislation, so

that can be voted for either for or against it.

As I say, I think if we concentrate on recommendation 2, then I think that would solve the issue 3860

today.

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

The Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure (Mr Cregeen): Thank you, Madam 3865

President.

I think it boils down quite simply to possibly not understanding the system. If you are a teacher

of class 2, the only information you get is of class 2. You cannot get information on children in

class 3 or class 1. It is only information on those children that you are dealing with. You cannot

get information on people that you do not deal with, and I think there is a lot of misunderstanding 3870

of what it is actually doing.

When I have gone through the Report from the Standing Committee, the one thing I think I

may have missed is that I cannot find anywhere that the Committee had actually been to the

Department and seen the system or discussed it. So I hope the Caairliagh will say when they

actually went to the Department, in the fullness of information and their research, that they 3875

actually went there, looked at it and tried to see how it works, just so that they had got a full

understanding of the system, so it is a complete Report.

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

3880

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Madam President.

It was really just a statement I would like to make, as a member of the Economic Policy

Review Committee.

It has already been agreed in Westminster that the Attorney General’s office must disclose its

advice to a parliamentary committee and a parliamentary committee must be able to see the advice 3885

of the Attorney General’s Chambers. Had this been the case, then I feel the Social Affairs Policy


_________________________________________________________________

1212 T130

Review Committee could have had a combined meeting with the Data Protection Supervisor and

the Attorney General. They could have sat around the table, thrashed this out, and this could have

been sorted, and we would not… We have spent two hours (Several Members: Hear, hear.) in

this Hon. Court today and I am not saying it is wasted, but had this advice been accepted, we 3890

would not have been here today.

I hope that the Acting Attorney General takes this on board when he goes away to decide on

privilege, because, in my opinion, I thought we had already decided that it had to be disclosed to

the parliamentary committees. Two hours wasted.


The President: The mover to reply.


Actually, it has been two hours and almost 20 minutes since I first got on my feet to move the 3900

motion.

I am quite surprised by the tenor of debate. I am also quite shocked at the aggression that is

coming from certain Members who have spoken towards the work of your Scrutiny Standing

Committee. We have had no less than 14 Members, including Mr Speaker, and I thank him for

seconding and for the very valuable contribution to the debate. Fourteen Members have spoken 3905

during this debate, and there is so much misunderstanding that I am, quite frankly, quite shocked.

I am not going to go through all of the issues that were raised, because a lot of it, to my mind,

stems from the fact that that particular person, that Member who spoke had clearly not read the

Report or fully understood the intention of this Committee, and I find that very disappointing.

I think the most interesting contribution was from the learned Acting Attorney General, 3910

because he got up and he apologised for the length of time and the confusion within his office, in

terms of advising the Department of Education. He also then read out the reply to a question raised

in another place and said he concurs with it. What he did not do, however, Hon. Members – and

please take this into consideration – he did not offer his view on the data protection legislation as it

applies to headteachers, or indeed the Department. There was no mention about that. We have data 3915

and legislation in place. We actually have law in place!

It is written in law, general duties of the Data Protection Supervisor:

‘It is the duty of the Supervisor to promote the following of good practice by data controllers’

– data controllers are the headteachers themselves –

‘and, in particular, so to perform his functions under this Act as to promote the observance of the requirement of this

Act by data controllers.’

That is the Data Protection Act 2002. That has been adopted by this place. We have that in law.

That is his job. That is his only job. 3920

The downside of course is that he does not have any powers when he discovers that there is a

flaw or breach or non-compliance. All he can do is to continually advise that particular

Government Department on where the shortcomings were. He offered his advice to us and we

looked at that advice, and we considered the regulations that he was referring to and we studied

those regulations. We studied the primary legislation. 3925

Now then, what we wanted and what we have never, ever had to date is a copy of the legal

opinion that the Department said it had from the Attorney General’s Chambers. Why is that? I

believe and the Committee believes that it does not exist. (Several Members: Oh!) That is what

we believe. What we believe is that, at the time of wanting to bring in the central data control

mechanism for the Department, they checked, probably by telephone, to see whether or not they 3930

were lawfully entitled to do it, and they were given the impression that, under section 1, under the

Education Act 2001, that gave them a power.

It may well be so; but does it give them the power to then expect independent data controllers –

in the headteachers, the teachers – to pass on information, for which they are registered under data

protection but not protected for passing it on? It is not there. 3935

All that is needed… There is a permissive in the Education Act 2001 for the Department to

come forward with regulations. The regulations are putting the meat on the bone. That is how we

have always regarded it. You put the meat on the bone. Your primary legislation is your

framework for making law in those particular areas. The detail, how it is applied, how it is

handled, how it is stored, and any penalties that may kick in for the non-compliance of that are 3940

specified in regulations. (Interjection)


_________________________________________________________________

1213 T130

We have a load of regulations before us, which are complying with primary legislation that we

have. We do not have the regulations to make this lawful, and all we are saying is please consider

and bring in the regulations and then everything is squared, everything is safe, everything is

lawful. That is all we are saying. It is not a whipping exercise against a Department or against 3945

anything. It is not! So please forget the political science of this person or the character of me or

who I am. I chair a Committee and I chair it as impartially as I possibly can, and I enjoy the work

of this Committee.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the third member of our Committee, who still sits on

our Committee but does not sit in Tynwald Court any more, and that is Mr David Callister. (A 3950

Member: Hear, hear.) He has worked tirelessly, along with Mr Speaker, myself and our Clerk, Mr

King, in testing this to the point where we felt we have to address it, advise Tynwald on the

shortcoming. It is a small shortcoming that can be put right by regulations, and all we have had is

persistent opposition to it.

Now, the Minister said, and in his amendment it says: 3955

‘Delete all words [in recommendation 2] and replace with “That the necessary legislative framework is in place for

work on the centralised pupil database to continue”.’

Where is the legislative framework? Where is the legal opinion to say you have got it in law?

Where is it?

If I were the Minister for Education, I would have sought that legal opinion today – even as

late as today – to just make absolutely sure that I was on safe ground. I would have submitted and

requested, even if it was an e-mail, from the Attorney General’s Chambers to confirm in writing 3960

that it is lawful for this practice to continue and it is lawful for headteachers to supply the

Department with the information for this practice. It is not here. Where is it? It is not here.

If it was before us, I would be the first to say, ‘Oh, thank goodness! You have it now! That is

all we wanted.’ Had we had that, we then – addressing the Hon. Member for Onchan’s point, Mr

Karran – would have tested it. We would have taken our own independent legal opinion to test that 3965

opinion that had come from Chambers. But it is not there! We have not had it, we have not seen it,

the Minister does not have it, and this Court is being hoodwinked today, if you believe that he has

it and he has the lawful right.

What is dangerous about this position –

3970

The President: Hon. Members, I think we have to be careful about our wording.

Mrs Cannell: Some passion here, Madam President: a very important issue, where we are

dealing with young people and children and the education system.

If we had that proof, we might then withdraw, go away, evaluate it, take an independent legal 3975

opinion on it, to make absolutely sure. That is what scrutiny is all about! Scrutiny is not just

glancing through paperwork; it is going through it line by line by line and testing the meaning of

it. That is what we do, and we do it well. All the Scrutiny Committees do it well. It is a brilliant

system.

The learned Acting Attorney General said the matter remained unresolved. He also mentioned 3980

– and I think Hansard will bear me out – that he feels that perhaps Chambers sat on the fence in

advice of the Department. So they are holding their hands up and saying, ‘We were at fault here,

because we haven’t given the Department what it needed, in terms of being able to satisfy this

Scrutiny Committee’s concerns.’ As I have said, it is not there. If it was, we would have it, Hon.

Members. So we were not able to test it, because it is not here. 3985

I am not going to quibble with the interpretation of the existing legislation. If we do not

understand it, then I would say, what are we doing here? Our primary job in another place is to

probe, test and scrutinise legislation and in so doing, we must surely know the impact of that

legislation. None of us are lawyers, but we are lawmakers. That is our primary job, as lawmakers.

I would thank everybody who has spoken, whether they have spoken against us or for us. I 3990

would thank them for it, because I think this debate has been essential. This is what parliamentary

debate is all about. It is not rushing things through; it is thinking about them, and some Members

have made very, very thoughtful and well-considered contributions.

Just very briefly, Madam President, very little has been said about the… under Standing

Orders, Madam President, as you will be well aware, when a Committee such as ours lays a report 3995

under Standing Orders, the Department of Government that it is talking about is obliged to lay its

report or to report upon the laid report. So we had the reaction from the Department of Education –


_________________________________________________________________

1214 T130

it was briefly referred to by Mr Speaker, in his contribution – dated March 2013, and it is their

report, their response to our Report.

There is one very important element in it, and that is section 4.7 on page 6. Mr Speaker 4000

referred to it, but I think it is worth repeating:

‘In deference to Recommendation 2, until this matter is resolved, the development of other forms of reporting have

been halted.’

So they are waiting for the outcome of today’s debate, and I would suggest to you that, if you

reject our recommendation in respect of halting until the legislative framework is there, and you

condone the actions of the Department which has been unable to prove and substantiate that they

do in fact have the legal authority and that the teachers are protected the same, you will be giving 4005

licence for a Department to continue doing something which it is not lawfully able. You will give

carte blanche licence to flouting that law as it applies to every other man, woman and child in the

Island. The Department of Education will turn the other cheek, because we have given them

permission for this. We have accepted the Department’s amendment.

Finally, I would say – (A Member: Oh!) Hon. Members for North Douglas, this is why you 4010

are here: get used to it! (A Member: Hear, hear.) (Interjections)

The Department of Education said, in this report, in this reaction to our Report, the schools are

the Department – just as a matter of those actually working in a central office of the Department. It

is a single entity. We have not had legal confirmation that that, in fact, is fact or truthful. (A

Member: We did.) 4015

I would say to you teachers are public servants, not civil servants. Those in the Departments of

Government are civil servants. The latter create the policy and teachers implement the policy. This

is clearly demonstrated by sections 5 and 16 of the Education Act 2001, which requires the

Department of Education to make enabling legislation. Section 16 requires the Department of

Education to make regulations for schools to keep registers of pupils in. They have not done it. It 4020

does not exist.

Madam President, I would ask Hon. Members, please do the responsible thing and support all

four recommendations as printed on the agenda.

I beg to move.

4025

The President: The motion before the Court is set out at Item 7 on your Order Paper, Hon.

Members. We have had submitted amendments to two of the recommendations and, therefore, I

will take all the recommendations separately.

We will first vote on recommendation 1, Hon. Members, which is not subject to amendment.

Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Division called. 4030

I think we now have electronic voting, Hon. Members. (Interjections)

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR Mr Quirk Mr Hall Mr Karran Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

AGAINST None


_________________________________________________________________

1215 T130

The Speaker: Madam President, in the Keys, 22 for, none against.


FOR Mr Corkish Mr Wild Mr Crowe Mr Downie The Lord Bishop Mr Butt Mr Turner Mr Braidwood Mr Coleman

AGAINST None

The President: In the Council, 9 votes for and none against. The motion therefore carries.

We move then to recommendation 2. To that, we have an amendment in the name of the

Minister for Education and Children. I will read the revised wording: 4035

‘That Tynwald is of the opinion that the necessary legislative framework is in place for work on the centralised pupil

database to continue’.

I will put the amendment to you, Hon. Members. Those in favour of the amendment, please say

aye; against no. The ayes have it.



FOR Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne

AGAINST Mr Hall Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Houghton Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell The Speaker

The Speaker: Madam President, the amendment carries, 14 for, 8 against.



AGAINST None

The President: In the Council, 9 votes for and none against. The amendment therefore carries.

I will put recommendation 2 as amended to the Court. Those in favour of the amended 4040

recommendation as a substantive recommendation, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.


_________________________________________________________________

1216 T130



FOR Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne

AGAINST Mr Hall Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Houghton Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell The Speaker

The Speaker: Madam President, in the Keys, 14 for, 8 against.



AGAINST None

The President: In the Council, 9 votes for and none against. The substantive amended 4045

recommendation 2 therefore carries.

We move to recommendation 3, which is not subject to amendment. Those in favour, please

say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

Mrs Cannell: I don’t believe this – shameful! 4050

A Member: It’s your Report!

Another Member: Believe it!



FOR Mr Hall Mr Karran Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Houghton Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell The Speaker

AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne

The Speaker: Madam President, in the Keys, 9 votes for, 13 against. 4055


_________________________________________________________________

1217 T130


FOR None

AGAINST Mr Corkish Mr Wild Mr Crowe Mr Downie Lord Bishop Mr Butt Mr Turner Mr Braidwood Mr Coleman

The President: In the Council, no votes for and 9 against. The recommendation therefore fails

to carry.

Finally, we come to recommendation 4, which is subject to amendment. I will put to you the 4060

amendment in the name of the Minister for Education and Children to recommendation 4. Those

in favour of the amendment please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.



FOR Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne

AGAINST Mr Hall Mr Karran Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Houghton Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell The Speaker




AGAINST None

The President: In the Council, 9 for and no votes against. The amendment therefore carries.

I will put to you recommendation 4 as a substantive recommendation. Those in favour, please 4065

say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.



FOR Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Teare Mr Cregeen

AGAINST Mr Hall Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Houghton Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell Mr Skelly


_________________________________________________________________

1218 T130

Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Gawne

The Speaker




AGAINST None

The President: And in the Council, 9 for and none against. The substantive recommendation

therefore carries.

I finally put to you the whole motion as amended, Hon. Members, as a substantive motion. 4070

Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.


Export Control (Iran Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2013

(Application) Order 2013 approved

8. The Minister for the Treasury to move:

That the Export Control (Iran Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2013 (Application) Order 2013

be approved [SD No 0101/13]

The President: Now, we move on to Item 8, Hon. Members, Minister for the Treasury to

move.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, Madam President. 4075

This Order applies in Island law the Export Control (Iran Sanctions) Order 2013, which in turn

amends the Export Control (Iran Sanctions) Order 2012.

The amendments made to the 2012 Order are needed to provide for the enforcement of new

trade sanctions imposed against Iran by means of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012, which

amended Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, which came into effect in the Island on 31st 4080

January 2013. The new trade sanctions include prohibitions on the trade, technical and financial

assistance of brokering of key naval equipment and technology, software for integrating industrial

processors, graphite and certain raw and semi-finished metals, as well as a ban on the trade in

Iranian natural gas.

Madam President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. 4085

Mr Braidwood: I beg to second, Madam President, and reserve my remarks.

The President: The motion before the Court is set out at Item 8, Hon. Members. Those in

favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 4090


_________________________________________________________________

1219 T130


Export Control (Amendment) Order 2013 (Application) Order 2013 approved


That the Export Control (Amendment) Order 2013 (Application) Order 2013 be approved.

[SD No 0102/13]

The President: Item 9, the Minister for the Treasury to move.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Teare): Thank you, Madam President. 4095

This Order applies in Island law the Export Control (Amendment) Order 2013. The applied

Order amends the principal source of export control law in the Island, the Export Control Order

2008, to replace schedule 2.

Schedule 2 to the 2008 Order contains a list of what is known as the Military List or the UK

List, comprising defence-related items which are subject to export controls. The replacement of 4100

the schedule ensures that export and trade control legislation in the Island corresponds to that in

the United Kingdom.

Madam President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

Mr Braidwood: I beg to second, Madam President, and reserve my remarks. 4105

The President: The motion before the Court is set out at Item 9, Hon. Members. Those in

favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Collective Investment Schemes Act 2008

Collective Investment Schemes (Fees) Order 2013 withdrawn


Financial Services (Fees) Order 2013 withdrawn

10-11. The Minister for the Treasury to move:

10. That the Collective Investment Schemes (Fees) Order 2013 be approved. [SD No 0113/13]

11. That the Financial Services (Fees) Order 2013 be approved. [SD No 0114/13]

The President: Items 10 and 11 have been withdrawn.


Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013 approved


That the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013 be approved.

[SD No 0112/13]

The President: We move to Item 12. I call on the Minister for the Treasury to move. 4110


Hon. Members, these Regulations amend the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme Regulations

2010, to remove Santander UK plc from the list of institutions that are exempt from liability to

contribute to the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme in the event of a default. 4115

The Santander Group is undergoing a restructuring exercise in the Isle of Man. This will result

in the deposit business of the bank known as Alliance & Leicester International Ltd, based at 19-

21 Prospect Hill, being transferred to the Isle of Man branch of Santander UK plc.

Santander UK plc will be taking customer deposits in the Isle of Man with effect from 7th

May 2013, and therefore should become a participant in the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme 4120


_________________________________________________________________

1220 T130

with effect from that date. Santander UK plc will be required to pay the levy in the event of a

future default of a bank.

Madam President, I beg to move motion standing in my name.

Mr Braidwood: I beg to second, Madam President, and reserve my remarks. 4125

The President: The motion is, Hon. Members, at Item 12 on your Order Paper. Those in


Sea-Fisheries Act 1971

Sea-Fisheries (Licensing, Etc) (Amendment) Bye-Laws 2013 approved


That the Sea-Fisheries (Licensing, Etc) (Amendment) Bye-Laws 2013 be approved.

[SD No 0065/13]

The President: Item 13, Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to move.

4130


Eaghtyrane.

These Bye-Laws introduce a charge for commercial fishing vessel owners for the application

and issue of an Isle of Man fishing vessel licence for all types of commercial fishing vessel

activities within the Manx territorial sea. 4135

These Bye-Laws promote the ‘user pays’ principle and seek to recoup the costs of

administration in respect of the issue of such licences. It may be of interest for Members that the

Department issues approximately 350 fishing licences per year, with around 30% of those licences

not being used year on year.

It is felt that the introduction of a licence fee will likely deter some applicants, thus freeing up 4140

costly administrative time and enabling officers the time to focus on what is considered more

important work in relation to the monitoring of stocks and administering industry grants and

developing sustainable fisheries policies.

The licences will be issued biannually, with a charge levied for renewals or new applicants. I

would therefore, Eaghtyrane, move the resolution in my name. 4145

The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Madam President,

I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 4150

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Downie.


I have just got a couple of points to make. My understanding is that, years ago, these licences 4155

were free, and now the Department is trying to recoup some of the cost, which is perfectly

laudable. I am just keen to know from the Minister, if some of these licences had not been taken

up, could we not be a little bit more persuasive in trying to get more money? It seems that a cost of

£435, which is non-profitmaking, as it were – that is what it costs the Department to run this

particular regime, to produce a licence – it seems to me that we might be able to increase slightly; 4160

or maybe he is looking next year to increase.

I would just like to also ask if these licences now, because there is a fee for them, actually

establish any grandfather rights.

And finally, the Order that is before us reverts to British-registered fishing vessels. Can he

confirm whether or not there is a memorandum of understanding between Eire-registered fishing 4165

vessels? On occasion, there used to be some historic rights for French and Belgian vessels coming

into the Irish Sea, and if they wanted, could they apply for a licence in a similar vein?

Thank you.

The President: The Minister to reply. 4170


_________________________________________________________________

1221 T130

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I thank my seconder, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft, who ably assists me

on all matters fisheries, and I thank the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Downie, for his comments.

I am not 100% sure on the MoU between the Isle of Man and Eire and the issue in relation to 4175

French and Belgian vessels. I am fairly sure that they could not apply, but I will check on that one

and ensure that Members are circulated with that information. I do not think it specifically or

significantly affects this particular scheme.

I do know that, as this is a scheme that is being brought forward – or Bye-Laws being brought

forward – through negative resolution, I have already signed this off, and the overwhelming 4180

majority of the sea fisheries licences have already been issued and there are none from France,

Belgium or the Republic of Ireland, as far as I am aware. But I will clarify that particular point.

It does not affect grandfather rights, so effectively the grandfather rights remain the same,

regardless of whether there is a fee or not.

As far as cost recovery, the only reason we can do this is because we are recovering costs. We 4185

cannot use this as a ruse to make money for Isle of Man Government. If we tried to do that, then

we would be in breach of our agreements with the UK authorities. This is purely about recouping

an administrative cost. I know there has been some concern, particularly from some of the smaller

vessels, that perhaps we should have had a sliding scale of charges, whereas actually we could not

do that because we had to be seen to be being fair to everyone and it was purely recouping costs 4190

for the administration.

So with that, I beg to move.

The President: The motion is, Hon. Members, set out at Item 13 on your Order Papers. Those

in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 4195

Fees and Duties Act 1989

Inland Fisheries (Fees) Order 2013 approved


That the Inland Fisheries (Fees) Order 2013 be approved. [SD No 0066/13]

The President: Item 14, Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture.


Eaghtyrane.

This Order continues the theme of the ‘user pays’ principle adopted by Government. It 4200

introduces a charge recouping officer time where fish removal or advice is sought, where

contractors undertake works in or near to inland waters.

As indicated in the supporting paperwork, the Department is the only organisation in the Isle of

Man with the authority and equipment to carry out fish transfers and removals. The advice to

Members sets out the reasons for charging for this work and will only apply it to external 4205

contractors in this regard, as officers also work closely and effectively with other Government

agencies, such as the Water and Sewerage Authority and the Department of Infrastructure.

I would therefore, Eaghtyrane, move the resolution in my name.

The President: The Hon. Mrs Beecroft. 4210



The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Singer. 4215

Mr Singer: Thank you.

Could I ask the Hon. Minister, there is no penalty here for a contractor who does not notify the

Department – or is there in fact a penalty? What can the Department do if they are not notified

about the fish and the contractor goes ahead? 4220



_________________________________________________________________

1222 T130


All contractors undertaking work in rivers have to notify the Department of works that are 4225

likely to cause disturbance to the watercourses, so I would imagine that that covers the issue, and

if they do not, there are penalties associated with that.

Again, if I have misunderstood what the Hon. Member has asked I would be more than happy

to talk to him and clarify the position on that.

I beg to move. 4230

The President: The motion is set out at Item 14 on your Order Paper, Hon. Members. Those in


Petroleum Act 1998 (of Parliament)

Submarine Pipe-Lines (Designated Owner) Order 2013 approved

15. Mr Downie to move:

That the Submarine Pipe-Lines (Designated Owner) Order 2013 be approved.

[SD No 0111/13]

The President: Item 15, the Hon. Member, Mr Downie.

4235


In 1993, by way of a seabed lease, the former Department of Highways, Ports and Properties

authorised construction of the Natural Gas Interconnector 1 pipeline through the Isle of Man’s

territorial sea by Bord Gáis Éireann – otherwise known as BGE.

As part of the financial structure established by BGE, the pipeline was sold shortly after 4240

completion of construction to Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd and then leased back to

BGE. This financial arrangement has expired and under the terms of the original seabed lease,

ownership has been transferred to BGE (UK) with the approval of all the parties involved,

including the Department of Infrastructure, and having taken the appropriate legal advice.

The Department of Economic Development administers the Petroleum Act 1998, as it applies 4245

to the Isle of Man. Under this Act, the Department of Economic Development is required to

designate by order the owner of any petroleum pipeline running through our territorial seas.

As ownership of the pipeline from Loughshinny in the Republic of Ireland to Brighouse Bay in

Scotland has changed, this new Order is required. The change of ownership will not materially

affect the leasing arrangement between the Department of Infrastructure and Bord Gáis Éireann in 4250

respect of the pipeline.

Madam President, I now beg to move the motion standing in my name.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Crowe.

4255

Mr Crowe: Thank you, Madam President.



4260

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, there is one query I have got: in the circulated document – and I

asked one of my colleagues – it talks about page 1, 3, 4, 5, but there is no page 2. Maybe the hon.

Mover, when he is replying, would like to clarify what was actually on page 2.

As far as the issue is concerned, it may seem a small concern, but because we did not get our

act together as far as Bord Gáis Éireann in the first place, this lease actually ended up costing the 4265

taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds. We are where we are, but the fact is what I am

concerned about is the total lack of information, apart from one page, as far as this is concerned.

Was there any opportunity of any renegotiation, any way of getting back any sort of money that

was expended, as far as the liability, as far as the taxpayer is concerned – or should I say, the MEA

is concerned – on this affair? 4270

I just feel that, whilst one cannot vote against this, there is limited information, and I just think

that the likes of… It was only the fact of clarifying with somebody today that one of the other

Members… I thought it was just my thing that the page 2 seems to be missing in the Order. I do


_________________________________________________________________

1223 T130

think that it is important, and whilst, to be fair to the mover of the motion, he is only moving it for

the Minister, I do feel that it does concern me, we should have that information, we should have 4275

more information about this, because if there is anything that we could have retrieved from it…

I know the negotiations went on with the Chairman of the MEA at the time, and the likes of the

Hon. Member for Ayre – I will give him credit where credit is due – did not renegotiate from an

impossible position, but I just feel that the likes of… page 2 is not on this documentation.

I have tried to get some advice over this proposal and I just feel that maybe if the deputy 4280

Minister can just clarify more depth as far as this issue is concerned, because I think it is

important. Were there any opportunities to be able to get something out of this for the taxpayer

and the MEA? I just would like his view on that.

The President: Before we invite the Member to reply, there is nothing on page 2 of the Order, 4285

nor is there intended to be anything on page 2 of the Order, Hon. Member.

Mr Downie.


If the Hon. Member would look at the front of the document, it says page 3 and page 4. There 4290

does not exist a page 2, and everything that is in the Order is before him.

Perhaps I should remind the Hon. Member that we are actually talking about two different

issues here. The Hon. Member for Onchan talks about this pipeline and the involvement and

getting something for the MEA, but really, we are talking about SIPS1 here. This was one of the

original pipelines that came down through the Irish Sea, and with respect, when he turned to speak 4295

to the Treasury Minister, the Treasury Minister was not even a Member of this Court when this

pipeline was laid, so it is a completely different issue. I wish he would not try and mislead the

Court on this.

There was some controversy over this pipeline, because when it was laid, some of us who had

been in the Court for a long time thought we were going to get our link-in, so that if and when the 4300

gas-fired power station was built years after, we could actually get access to that.

However, that did not happen. The technology was not there at the time. It is when SIPS2 came

along that we were able to tap into the T-piece that was established for us and negotiated by the

MEA; and the rest, so they say, is history.

It is a perfectly straightforward issue. There has been a change of ownership and we are 4305

required to bring this motion before Tynwald today – the Submarine Pipe-Lines (Designated

Owner) Order 2013.

Madam President, I beg to move.

The President: The motion before the Court is set out at Item 15 on your Order Paper. Those 4310

in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Merchant Shipping Registration Act 1991

Merchant Shipping (Qualified Owners of Manx Ships) (Relevant Countries)

Regulations 2013 approved

16. Mr Downie to move:

That the Merchant Shipping (Qualified Owners of Manx Ships) (Relevant Countries)

Regulations 2013 be approved. [SD No 0070/13]

The President: Item 16, Mr Downie.

Mr Downie: Than you, Madam President.

The nationality of persons entitled to register a ship in the Island is laid down in the Merchant 4315

Shipping Registration Act 1991. This Act also enables a Department to prescribe other countries

from which all owners would become acceptable for registration.

The Regulations before you today are the Merchant Shipping (Qualified Owners of Manx

Ships) (Relevant Countries) Regulations 2013, which add two countries, Monaco and Switzerland,

to the existing list of countries. 4320

Based on several enquiries recently from prospective pleasure yacht clients, the Ship Registry

has identified Monaco and Switzerland as potential providers of new business opportunities.


_________________________________________________________________

1224 T130

Therefore, the purpose of these Regulations is to add Monaco and Switzerland to the list of

relevant countries for the purposes of registering a ship in the Isle of Man.

The Regulations have been drafted in consultation with the Secretary of State in the UK, the 4325

Isle of Man Shipping Association, the Attorney General’s Chambers, the United Kingdom

Department for Transport and the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Subject to

approval by Tynwald today, these Regulations will come into operation on 19th April 2013.

Madam President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

4330

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Crowe.

Mr Crowe: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Madam President.

The President: The motion is set out at Item 16 on your Order Paper, Hon. Members, Those in 4335



Terrorism (Finance) Act 2009

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code 2013 approved

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Online Gambling) Code 2013 approved

17-18. The Minister for Home Affairs to move:

17. That the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code 2013 be approved.

[SD No 0095/13]

18. That the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Online Gambling) Code 2013 be

approved. [SD No 0096/13]

The President: The Minister for Home Affairs has asked if can move Items 17 and 18

together, and we will then vote on them separately. Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

The President: Hon. Member, Minister for Home Affairs.

4340


I thank you and Hon. Members for their permission to move Items 17 and 18 on the Order

Paper together: the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code 2013 and the Money

Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Online Gambling) Code 2013. These Codes will revoke the

existing separate but virtually identical codes dealing with anti-money-laundering measures made 4345

under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2008 and those dealing with the countering of financing of

terrorism made under the Terrorism (Finance) Act 2009. They will be replaced with combined

codes that cover the two related areas. This will result in a reduction from the current four codes to

a single code each for the main regulated sector and online gambling.

The combined codes are broadly similar to their separate predecessors, apart from 4350

incorporating some minor updates and a number of more modern or stylistic drafting changes.

Representatives of the industry and regulators were consulted in the preparation of these codes and

careful consideration was given to any points raised in finalising the codes before this Hon. Court.

Madam President, I beg to move that the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code

2013 and the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Online Gambling) Code 2013 be 4355

approved.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Madam President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 4360

The President: We will vote on them separately, Hon. Members. The motion first is set out at

Item 17. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Item 18: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.


_________________________________________________________________

1225 T130


Proceeds of Crime (Business in the Regulated Sector) Order 2013 approved

19. The Minister for Home Affairs to move:

That the Proceeds of Crime (Business in the Regulated Sector) Order 2013 be approved.

[SD No 0097/13]

The President: Item 19, Minister for Home Affairs. 4365


Paragraph 1 of schedule 4 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2008 sets out the list of businesses that

are in the regulated sector for the purposes of the Act and the application of the associated

secondary legislation, including the Codes approved by the Court today. 4370

This Order substitutes a new paragraph 1 to ensure that all relevant businesses are subject to

the anti-money-laundering provisions of the Act.

The main change made in the substituted paragraph is the inclusion of certain categories of

business that were previously included in a schedule to the Codes but were not actually referred to

in the Act itself. The effect will be that where the Codes refer to the business in the regulated 4375

sector, they mean the same business as referred to in the Act, and this is obviously a sensible

change.

Madam President, I beg to move that the Proceeds of Crime (Business in the Regulated Sector)

Order 2013 be approved.

4380

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Quirk.



4385

The President: The motion before the Court is set out at Item 19 on your Order Paper. Those



Proceeds of Crime (Failure to Disclose Money Laundering – Specified Training)

Order 2013 approved

20. The Minister for Home Affairs to move:

That the Proceeds of Crime (Failure to Disclose Money Laundering – Specified Training)

Order 2013 be approved. [SD No 0098/13]

The President: Item 20, Minister for Home Affairs.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Watterson): Thank you, Madam President. 4390

Under section 142(9)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2008, it is the responsibility of

employers to train employees to ensure that they are aware of money laundering and how to

identify it. If employees do not receive such training, they may have a defence against the offence

of failure to disclose money laundering.

Accordingly, this measure states that the training required is specified in paragraph 23 of the 4395

Money Laundering and Terrorist Finance Code 2013 and paragraph 19 of the Money Laundering

and Terrorist Financing (Online Gambling) Code 2013.

Madam President, I beg to move the Proceeds of Crime (Failure to Disclose Money

Laundering – Specified Training) Order 2013 be approved.

4400

Mr Quirk: I beg to second, Madam President.

The President: The motion, Hon. Members, is set out at Item 20 on your Order Paper. Those


4405


_________________________________________________________________

1226 T130

Dangerous Goods Act 1928

Dangerous Goods (Fees) Order 2013 approved

21. The Minister for Infrastructure to move:

That the Dangerous Goods (Fees) Order 2013 be approved. [SD No 0104/13]

The President: Item 21, Minister for Infrastructure.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Cretney): Thank you.

This Order, made under the Dangerous Goods Act 1928, provides for inflationary increases to

various fees due in respect of licences to keep dangerous goods and, for the purposes of this Order, 4410

that mainly covers petroleum spirit and solid substances, including fireworks.

The fees were last increased in 2009 and the proposed increases are broadly in line with

inflation.

The Order has been subject of consultation with all interested parties. Further information

about the details of the increases has also been circulated to Hon. Members. 4415

I beg to move the Order standing in my name.

Mr Houghton: I beg to second, Madam President.

The President: The motion before you, Hon. Members, is set out at Item 21. Those in favour, 4420

please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

National Health Service Act 2001


Regulations 2013 approved

National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2013 approved

22-23. The Minister for Health to move:

22. That the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) (No 2)

Regulations 2013 be approved. [SD No 0118/13]

23. That the National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2013

be approved. [SD No 0117/13]

The President: We come to Items 22 and 23 and I think last month the Minister asked if he

could move them together. Is that your wish this time, sir?

The Minister for Health (Mr Anderson): I am happy to do that, Madam President. 4425

The President: Right. I call on the Minister for Health to move Items 22 and 23, to debate

them together, but we will vote on them separately.

The Minister: Madam President, these Amendment Regulations are being brought forward 4430

following consideration by the Council of Ministers of the Department’s proposal to align the

categories for patients who are exempt from paying a charge for both dental services and

prescriptions.

The principal effect of these Regulations is to exempt patients from paying a prescription

charge at the same age as they are eligible to receive the state retirement pension. This replaces the 4435

current arrangements, whereby patients are exempt upon reaching the age of 60.

The Department has also taken this opportunity to regularise the custom and practice exception

criteria that is currently in place in relation to blind persons being exempt from charges, and

updating the titles for the benefits – for example, the replacement of Family Income Supplement

and Disability Working Allowance with the Employed Person’s Allowance. 4440

The Department has prepared and circulated to all Members an explanatory memorandum in

relation to the Regulations, which I hope has been useful.

In relation to Item 23, the Regulations for which approval is being sought here restate the

National Health Service (Dental Charges) Regulations 2006, as amended. These Amendment


_________________________________________________________________

1227 T130

Regulations are being brought forward following consideration by the Council of Ministers… 4445

paper entitled ‘NHS Prescriptions and Exemption Criteria and General Dental Services Exemption

Criteria’.

Approval was granted, following the necessary consultation, to align the categories for patients

who are exempt from paying a charge, who have dental services and prescriptions, including

aligning the upper age limit for exemption from charges from 65 to those reaching the state 4450

retirement age. Therefore, the principal effect of these Regulations is to align the age criteria for

exemption from charges from the current age of 65 to that of the state retirement age, whatever

that might be.

In addition, the Department is using this opportunity to regularise the custom and practice of

the actual criteria that is currently in place in relation to blind persons being exempt from charges, 4455

updating the titles of those benefits – for example, the replacement of Family Income Support and

Disability Working Allowance with Employed Person’s Allowance. This includes removing the

reference of ‘partner’ and replacing it, in one instance, with the term ‘dependent’.

The opportunity has also been taken to amend the upper age criteria for exemption to dental

charges for children in order to bring them in line with prescription regulations. This will have the 4460

effect that the current upper age limit for children receiving exemption from dental charges will be

amended from those aged 18 to those aged under 16; however, full-time students under the age of

19 will continue to qualify for exemption from charges.

The Department has prepared and circulated to all Members an explanatory memorandum in

relation to these Regulations, which I hope has been helpful. I beg to move. 4465

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Butt.

Mr Butt: I beg to second, Madam President, and reserve my remarks.

4470

The President: The Hon. Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Madam President.

Speaking firstly, or principally, to the Charges for Drugs (Amendment) Regulations, which

change the prescription charge, back in December 1995 the position was that men paid at 65 for 4475

prescriptions and women at 60, and this Court agreed amendment regulations moved by the then

Health Minister, Mr May. I will just quote from Hansard what was said. In moving it, he said:

‘The Regulation for which approval is sought… is to reduce the age at which males qualify for exemption from

prescription charges from 65 to 60 so as to bring it into line with the age at which females already enjoy exemption from such charges. Members will recall the European judgment that led to the United Kingdom government

implementing this particular proceeding and will also recall the Department expressing its intent to do so at the earliest

opportunity.’

What happened in 1995 was that the UK Attorney General offered an opinion because of a

ruling from the European Court of Justice in 1995 in the case of Richardson v the United

Kingdom. It was a gentleman who considered that he had been discriminated against, in breach of 4480

an EU directive, because he had to wait until he reached the age of 65 for free prescriptions.

‘[Whereas EC directive of December 1978 refers and requires] the progressive implementation of the principle of

equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security…’

– this was the Advocate General's opinion –

‘[and that] (‘the directive’) should be interpreted in relation to national regulations according to which women are

exempt from prescription charges in connection with the provision of free medicine when they attain the age of 60, whereas men are only exempt from prescription charges when they attain the age of 65.’

So, what happened? There was then a High Court ruling implementing that EU directive, and

we did the same in December 1995 – the same being the equalisation of the age between men and

women, and you will see that the Health Minister made reference to that EU ruling. 4485

So my question is that the order before us seeks to reintroduce an age differential between men

and women, based, of course, on the pegging to state retirement age. Eventually over time it will

equalise, yes; but, in the meantime, until that happens, we are in a situation where we appear to be

in breach of the EU directive requiring equalisation of age and Social Security legislation and I

would like to give the Minister the opportunity to advise the Court of the Department’s position. I 4490

think he was probably aware I was going to raise this, or he should have been made aware anyway


_________________________________________________________________

1228 T130

as I have spoken to his officers. I think for the public record it is important that this reversal of

Tynwald policy is properly explained.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mrs Beecroft. 4495


I am just wondering if the Minister could clarify whether he is intending bringing back further

regulations and amendments to this in the next year or so, and I am asking this because I am really

trying to be helpful to him. 4500

I appreciate that the drugs bill for his Department is absolutely huge and there are a couple of

areas that I think he could helpfully look at, one being when you have got an ongoing problem, say

like a thyroid condition, everything is put on the one prescription and you get everything for free.

So could you not have two different prescriptions – one for the ongoing illness, or condition

rather, that you are going to have forever – so that you are actually paying something for all the 4505

other drugs?

The other issue I would like him to consider is possibly a blanket charge for everybody, apart

from say children and those on low incomes, for everything, regardless of pension age. If they are

on low income, fine; but there are an awful lot of quite wealthy pensioners who could pay. I

understand that if there was a charge of £2 for every prescription – apart from children and those 4510

on low incomes – then it would actually double the amount recouped by the Department.

There was a third thing and I have forgotten it (Laughter) but I will raise it with the Minister

another time if he looks at that. Thank you.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran. 4515

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think it is important that we hear all the time from the Treasury

Minister about the issues of the shortcomings and the fact that we are in hard times. We have just

seen maybe the opportunity of losing the opportunity, with Item 15, the fact that we got very little

information on it, that we are trying to find ways of creating an income as far as the Isle of Man is 4520

concerned.

I feel, as a Member of this Court, that I get annoyed when we see things being attacked which

should not be attacked. But I think it is very difficult for many of us in this Hon. Court to say that

pensioners should have an automatic exemption for dental or charges as far as prescription charges

are concerned. 4525

The situation is that I think the Minister needs to look at what we have tried to propose in the

past, where if you are earning over a specific amount, say £25,000 or £30,000 a year and you have

got a taxable income, the tax department should give you a certificate. If you are a pensioner and

you have got that card saying that you are under that allowance, then you should get free

prescriptions and free dental charges. 4530

One of the arguments that we had when we originally brought out what ended up being the

pension premium was the argument that one in four pensioners on the Island were on the upper

limit of Income Tax. Battling through the maze of trying to do something for the native people

who have been here for years and the low-wage economy in their twilight years, we have finally

got some common sense to prevail. 4535

So I would like to see the Minister working with the Treasury about a threshold, and the

problem is at the moment, Eaghtyrane, the threshold is right at the bottom and so you are either on

the Social or you are not; you are getting everything free, or you are not. I think what we have got

to be looking for is we have got to be getting that level at a more realistic level.

It is an absurdity, Eaghtyrane, that when I retire from this Hon. Court, or I am thrown out from 4540

this Hon. Court (Interjections) (Two Members: Hear, hear.) it will not be by you lot, but it might

be by the general public… but the situation is that with a pension, with a good pension, with an old

age pension, it is an absurdity that I should get free prescriptions and free dental care.

I think we have got to get that sort of debate going in this Court. We have got to stop running

away and running around in circles and shadows and we are worried about being popular. People 4545

will respect us.

What I do not want is to live in a society where I see the weak, the poor and the sick get

hammered and we have not got the money for the likes of... I believe the likes of the diabetics

have gone up threefold, but they have actually cut down on the services, and I do not expect the

Minister to know whether that is fact or fiction, but I was told that by one of the diabetic charities 4550

only the other week.


_________________________________________________________________

1229 T130

In my opinion, Eaghtyrane, where we should be having a motion here today is at a realistic

level. I raised this issue when I was in CoMin. In my opinion there should be an upper limit of

Income Tax, and if you have got the upper limit of Income Tax, you should not get free

prescriptions, free dentistry and a free bus pass as a pensioner. I think it is an absurdity. 4555

The biggest issue we have got at the moment is we have got a group of pensioners who are

living on the poverty line, who need to be protected. We have also got a lot of young people who

are starting out in life with their families, who are on the breadline as well.

I think what we have got to be is promoting a society that is inclusive in these hard economic

times. So that would mean that virtually every one of us in this Court – in fact, I would be very 4560

surprised if it would be any of us who would not have to pay our dental and our prescription

charges later.

I just think that the Minister has missed an opportunity here to actually address the real issue,

and if we can say that as the Opposition, or whatever you want to call us in the Liberal Party, then

I think that we should hope to see some courage of their convictions. 4565

When I listen to all these right-wingers in here wanting to dismantle the welfare state… Start

looking at real issues. Start looking at ways to create an income, not from the vulnerable and not

from the weak. I do not believe that a pensioner who is on the upper limit of Income Tax is a

vulnerable person, whether they are sick or they are not sick, and I think that is one thing.

The other thing I think the Minister needs to address is the fact that when he talks about the 4570

dental charges and dental costs, the biggest mistake we made was allowing the agenda for the

dental services to follow the United Kingdom, where they were wanting to get rid of dentistry out

of the Health Services, and then we were forced into the compromise of a direct employed dental

service. We seriously need to see the Department of Health around the negotiating table with the

general dental practitioners. 4575

Remember, Eaghtyrane, the straw that broke the camel’s back was we were going down from

either 22 months or 25 months, to…

The President: Hon. Member, can I draw you back to the motion on the Order Paper.

4580


Mr Karran: I understand that, Eaghtyrane, but I understand it is important that the fact is what

I am saying is that we would not need to bring this about if we were looking at a more effective

way as far as that is concerned. 4585

I hope that the Minister will do two things as far as these orders are concerned: (1) get it at a

sensible level and we will support you, no matter how unpopular it is; and (2) start negotiations

with the general dental practitioners and see whether using the money up from the direct service

will provide a more efficient and effective service as far as our people are concerned, and then we

should be renegotiating on that point. 4590

I think it is important, Eaghtyrane, as far as this issue is concerned, that just because I am a

diabetic, or I am whatever, to have a free prescription on that basis is wrong too. I believe that,

again, the Income Tax card should be there at a realistic level, and if you are over that limit… It is

not bureaucracy; it is just a matter of getting people to think outside the box and actually stop just

being a dog in a manger and stop these ideas going forward. 4595

We have hard times. We understand we have got hard times, but I do feel that far too often we

allow these opportunities where we can show by example with all the pensioners up here in this

Hon. Court, (Laughter) in the Upper House, that the fact is that we are doing away with their

exemption forms as far as that is concerned, because I think it is important.

I hope the Minister will take on board what I am saying and it will help to show outside that we 4600

want everyone to know that we are all in this together.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Braidwood.

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Madam President. 4605

I never thought I would hear myself say this, but I actually agree with the Hon. Member for

Onchan, Mr Karran, and the Hon. Member for South Douglas, Mrs Beecroft.

Madam President, I will receive – hopefully, if I live that long – next year, my state retirement

pension, but I do believe that Mr Karran has a good point and that if you can afford it, you should

pay for your prescription charges. 4610

I also agree with Mrs Beecroft when she mentioned that if you were thyroid deficient, you

were exempt from all prescription charges. I remember writing, about 10 years ago or more, to the


_________________________________________________________________

1230 T130

Public Accounts Committee putting this point forward on prescription charges and who should be

exempt. Also, as Mr Karran said, if you are a diabetic you are also exempt from all prescription

charges. 4615

The equalisation of the pension age is going to be… for men and women, it will be 2010

before that arrives at our age of 65, and I do believe Mr Speaker has –

Mr Crowe: 2013.

4620

Mr Braidwood: 2010. What did I say?

The President: You said 2010, but we are now 2013!

Mr Braidwood: Oh, yes, (Laughter) sorry, 2020, (Interjections) because, of course, for all 4625

women who were born after April 1955, they will have to wait until they are 65, which will be

2020.

But I do believe Mr Speaker has a good point, that if we refer back to the points that were

brought up by a former Minister, Mr May, in 1995, and if it is EU legislation, I would listen with

interest to the Minister on his reply, because otherwise, at the present time of course we know that 4630

males’ are 65 and women’s can vary now all the way up to 2020 until they are 65.


The President: Hon. Member, Mr Downie.

4635


I am brought to my feet because of one or two of the comments that my hon. friend from

Onchan, Mr Karran, had to make in the debate and I just think we should put the record right here.

There are some people who on this Island have worked for 45 years. They have been born just

after the… a lot of them in the war time. They have done war service; they have worked through 4640

difficult times after the war. They have paid NI, they have paid graduated pensions, they have paid

for everything, and I think what you have got to do is balance that against people who might be

able to afford other things.

I do not have a problem with looking at exemptions for prescription charges, for dental charges

and other things, but I think what we are actually seeing now is a form of that actually being 4645

introduced.

What I take offence at are comments like, ‘pensioners on the upper limit of Income Tax should

pay.’ Well, I think I should remind the Hon. Member that if you are a pensioner and you are not

working, you are on the upper limit of Income Tax because what you get is classed as unearned

income and so you are actually on the upper limit to some extent. You have got to think of people 4650

who have worked and scraped and brought families up and tried to save, who are now earning 1%

or 1¼% on their money. They are the people who are having the hard time at the moment, and so

somewhere in the middle we have got to balance this.

I think since the Hon. Member has joined the Liberal Vannin Party he has lost his socialist

tendencies because he used to be one of the best people here for standing up and fighting for the 4655

less well off; but we do not see too much of that these days.

I think that there should also be allowances made for pensioners who are still working. People

are living longer. We have got older people now who are much healthier, they are still very, very

active, and perhaps when people are earning above such a figure every week some of the

exemptions should not apply to them if they are bringing a respectable wage home. 4660

So they are things that I would not have any problem sorting out at all, but do not forget that a

lot of those people we are actually looking at now have actually put 45 solid years in, and they are

the people who, in a lot of cases, have put the economy and the standards that we have in place

now for us to enjoy.

4665

Mr Karran: We need to represent the £80,000-a-year… [Inaudible]


The Minister: Thank you, Madam President. 4670

I was quite enjoying that, but it had to come to an end.

I would like to thank the contributors to the debate generally for their support, and I will try

and take them in order.


_________________________________________________________________

1231 T130

Mr Speaker makes a relevant point that he has brought up with the Department, and the

Department has looked into this and has taken legal advice on it. My understanding is that we can 4675

stand that challenge and that time has moved on. I do not know… we are moving towards

equalisation anyway, so I suppose that the legislation is demonstrating that, but my understanding

from my officers is, from the Attorney General’s Chambers, we do not anticipate there to be a

problem in what we are bringing forward now.

4680

Mr Watterson: Show Brenda it does not exist.

The Minister: Obviously, Mr Speaker was here in 1995 when Mr May highlighted this being a

problem, but I suppose you can take it in the round that we are actually moving to a goal of

equalisation anyway and obviously it is going to take a few years to get there. 4685

I think Mr Braidwood was right, and I thought he was talking about cricket when he was

talking about 2020, but by 2020 we would have reached the position where we will have

equalisation. So my understanding is that we do not have anything to fear as far as a legal

challenge is concerned.

I would like to thank the contributor, Mrs Beecroft. Yes, this is only one step. We are moving 4690

towards equalisation. Yes, we are looking at further amendments to prescription exemption

criteria. Quite clearly, it is something of the past and the Council of Ministers was very keen that

we took one step at a time in this and we took everything in the round and took other things that

were coming in the pipeline and made sure that everything was being looked at appropriately.

So yes, we will be looking at exemption criteria as far as, maybe if you are a diabetic… and you 4695

are getting another drug, in the future I see that you will be charged. It is making sure that we get

it right and we will… [Inaudible], and I thank you for your input on that.

So yes, I expect to be back here with that detail, hopefully within the next year, but the Council

of Ministers was keen that I did not mix things up here – that I brought this first step here. And

then, at the same time, we are working up means testing as well, so I think it needs to fit into that. 4700

Mr Karran was making the same point, I think, that there are those wealthy retired people who

can justifiably pay the full charge for their drugs – and, yes, that is one area we are moving to.

Mr Downie sought to put a bit of balance into that: ‘I have paid my NI contributions for the

last 50 years, so I should expect’ –

4705

Mr Downie: Yes, so have we.

The Minister: Yes, so it is putting balance into this argument, but the time has arrived when

that is a luxury and so we must go down this route of trying to make things as fair as possible.

Those who can afford to pay in the long term, they will have to pay, but that is for another day. 4710

I thank you for your contribution and Mr Karran’s contribution, and it is good to have the

Liberal Vannin support on this issue (Members: Hear, hear.) (Interjections) and other Members of

the Court as well. So I thank you for that.

I thank Mr Braidwood for his contribution and I am sure, from a Treasury perspective, he will

be looking forward to the exemption criteria being narrowed significantly in the future. 4715

I thank Mr Downie for his input and trying to put a bit of balance in that. Yes, I have paid my

NI contributions over these years, but there are those extremely wealthy people who should not sit

within the exemption criteria.

I beg to move both the motions standing in my name. 4720

The President: Hon. Members, the motion before you is set out first at Item 22. Those in


Item 23, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Disability Discrimination Act 2006

Implementation of Act


24. The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to move:

That Tynwald is of the opinion that the Disability Discrimination Act 2006 should be brought

into force as soon as possible; and that the Department should publish a timetable for

implementation of the Act by June 2013.


_________________________________________________________________

1232 T130

The President: Item 24, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft, to move.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Madam President. 4725

I am sure that just about everybody in this Court is aware that the Disability Discrimination

Act received Royal Assent on 16th October 2006. That is some six-and-a-half years ago and it has

still not been brought into force. It has, however, been subject to much discussion and debate in

Tynwald, Keys, and even Legislative Council in the years since it received Royal Assent. I have

read through the Hansards, and whilst they are quite interesting, they are really very repetitive. 4730

The first Question about when the Act was going to be fully implemented came from my

colleague, Mr Karran, on 6th February 2007. The then Chief Minister, Mr Brown, stated that

because of the wide-ranging implications it would be phased in over a number of years. He went

on to say that the Department of Health and Social Security, as it was then called, was the lead

Department and that it knew its responsibility was to progress the legislation within a reasonable 4735

timescale. Unfortunately, he did not define what a reasonable timescale was for the then Minister,

Mr Teare, who was the Minister for this Department from 2006-10.

Minister Teare did raise the subject of funding needed by his Department to comply with the

Act just three months after the first Question was raised. He said that his Department had worked

for some years with the Disability Access Officer and that this process was complete. Minister 4740

Teare was asking Tynwald approval for £928,000 spread over three years to spend on disability

access measures in anticipation of the Disability Discrimination Act coming into force. There was

£268,000 for 2007-08, £330,000 for 2008-09, and a further £330,000 for 2009-10. So it would

seem that by sometime in 2010 the then Department of Health and Social Security would be fully

compliant. 4745

On 15th July 2008, the then Chief Minister stated that the Act would be implemented three

years after the appointment of specialist advisers.

In November, Mr Teare told the House of Keys, and I quote:

‘Whilst it is not possible to give a precise date for the Act to be fully in force, our timeframe for full implementation is

three years from the appointment of specialist advisers.’

This was some 16 months after the then Chief Minister first referred to three years after the

appointment of the specialist advisers. 4750

On 13th July 2010, the then Chief Minister told Tynwald that an economic impact assessment

was presently underway, and he reaffirmed his commitment to the speedy implementation of the

Act.

One step before that, on 10th February 2009, the Legislative Council tabled a Question and

were told: 4755

‘Our timeframe for implementation is three years, following on from the appointment of specialist advisers.’

I think the Court will get that it is a bit repetitive. They keep saying the same things.

Then all went quiet for some two-and-a-half years, until on 30th October last year I asked the

current Chief Minister to make a statement on the progress. He told the House of Keys that, in the

third quarter of 2011, the Department of Social Care had commissioned an impact assessment on

the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act. But what happened to the previous 4760

impact assessment that the then Chief Minister stated was underway in July 2010? The Chief

Minister went on to say that further progress would be made by using a phased approach to

implementation. I think we have heard that expression before too.

He said that the Tynwald Advisory Committee on Disability had prepared an assessment,

which had come before the Council of Ministers for consideration on 20th September 2012, and 4765

that the Council of Ministers had also agreed that the Department of Social Care would submit an

annual report outlining progress in relation to this Act. I would ask why an annual report? How

many more years are they anticipating this going on?

As I said at the beginning, it is all rather disappointingly repetitive. In February 2007, the then

Chief Minister stated it was going to be phased in over a number of years. Six years after it 4770

received Royal Assent, we are being told by the current Chief Minister that further progress will

be made using a phased approach to implementation. Well, a phased approach can be introduced

immediately. In the UK, it was 2004 before there was a requirement for reasonable adjustments to

be made for the removal or alteration of physical features, as this could have had cost implications

for some UK businesses, but they only had to do what was reasonable. 4775

If I could just borrow from the speaker at today’s presentation, an example of ‘reasonable’, he

said, is where, if there is a flight of steps up to premises – whether it is a shop or restaurant, or


_________________________________________________________________

1233 T130

whatever – if there is no room for a ramp on the pavement and it is too expensive for those

premises to install a lift or some other such thing, it could be that they can just put a bell with a

notice saying ‘Please ring for assistance’. That is not going to cost a lot of money. We do not need 4780

to be frightened of this; it is what is classed as reasonable. The UK Disability Discrimination Act

code of practice clearly stated that reasonableness depended on the size of business and the

availability of financial resources and the practicality.

So why can’t this Government be reasonable and take reasonable steps to introduce

reasonable adjustments, so that our disabled do not continue to be disadvantaged? 4785

I believe that all the talk of some £40 million or £50 million is simply scaremongering. All new

buildings and any that have had alterations in the last seven years are already compliant. The

private sector have known that this Act would be enforced one day and, I am sure, will have given

consideration to what they can achieve, and if the reasonable adjustments measure was

introduced, I am sure that virtually all premises would be compliant within a very short space of 4790

time. After all, it is not in any business’s best interest to exclude a section of community from

doing business with them.

Madam President, I really believe that the time has come to set out a firm timescale for those

involved to work to. This has been kicked into the long grass far too often, and it is only by having

a firm timescale that we will see real and measurable progress. Even if this Act was in force today, 4795

we would still be behind the curve ball, as England and Ireland have introduced equality

legislation which is far broader than our Disability Discrimination Act.

This Government has stated repeatedly that protecting the vulnerable is one of its three core

aims, and I would like to see that statement being backed up by action now, not glossed over again

with clever words and speeches and repetitive phrases promising all sorts of things. I would like to 4800

see a firm timescale now that we will stick to.

Thank you, Madam President. I beg to move.


4805

Mr Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Madam President. 4810

I wish to propose an amendment, which leaves out all words after ‘That Tynwald’ and inserts

wording such that the motion reads:

‘That Tynwald acknowledges the work undertaken to date on the phased implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act; and is of the opinion that this phased approach should continue and that the Department should

publish by the end of 2013 a timetable detailing next steps for the implementation of the Act.’

I totally understand the frustration felt by the Hon. Member in moving the motion, something I

am sure is shared by all Members of this Hon. Court, and a frustration, I am sure, quickened by the

quite excellent presentation at lunchtime. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) 4815

However, we have two clear courses of action open to us: the first, to simply implement the

Act on a given date; the second, to implement the Act in a progressive and steady fashion. In what

follows I will argue strongly for the latter, but before doing so, I think it is important to clear up

what appears to be something of a misunderstanding in the minds of some Members with regard to

the scope of the Act, touched upon by the mover. 4820

My Department has, over recent months, received a number of enquiries about the employment

and education implications of implementing the Disability Discrimination Act. I must be clear that

the Island’s Disability Discrimination Act makes no provision for prohibiting discrimination in

relation to either education or employment of people with a disability; so the Isle of Man Act is

not the same as the legislation introduced in the UK. Specifically, Manx legislation does not make 4825

provision for either education or employment in the same way as the UK legislation. Broadly, it

makes provision for organisations to make reasonable arrangements for the provision of goods

and services to people with a disability. It does not therefore obviate the need to develop detailed

equality legislation. We are not dealing with equality legislation here; we are dealing with access.

In this regard, the Act prohibits discrimination against disabled people with regard to the 4830

reasonable provision of goods, facilities and services and ensuring the reasonable access to the

provision of goods, facilities and services.

Implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act will make it unlawful for a provider of

services to the public to discriminate against a disabled person by failing to provide access to the


_________________________________________________________________

1234 T130

goods and services they provide. The provider must therefore make reasonable adjustments to 4835

allow a disabled person to make use of such goods and services. Indeed, we heard some very clear

examples of reasonable adjustments, as presented by, I believe it was, Mr Gareth Foulkes in his

excellent presentation today.

The implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act has been the subject of a whole series

of Questions over the years in this Hon. Court and in another place. Implementation, however, was 4840

always going to be dependent upon a detailed survey of the financial implications of so doing.

To that end, my Department commissioned such a survey through the good offices of a well

respected organisation, called Sight and Sound, with very considerable experience in the field. The

result of the survey became available for consideration by the Council of Ministers in September

2012. The Council concluded, after consideration, the approval of a phased approach based on the 4845

following actions: (1) a multi-agency forum, including the business community and third sector

being involved, to establish a shared view of what was reasonable in the context of the Act; (2) a

Happy to Help scheme being implemented to assist organisations to comply with the Disability

Discrimination Act; (3) further development of an access service and a partnership between my

Department and Crossroads Care (Isle of Man); and finally, (4) Council also agreed that my 4850

Department would submit an annual report to the Council of Ministers outlining progress in

relation to implementing the Act.

This decision to opt for a phased implementation of the Act comes from the evidence made

available by the experts in the field, Sight and Sound, which shows that the cost of full compliance

for Government would be in the region of £5.6 million, whilst the cost to the private sector is 4855

estimated to be in the region of £40 million.

So, what action have we taken? Since consideration by the Council of Ministers, my

Department has developed and agreed a service specification with Crossroads for the provision of

the access service.

Work is also being developed in relation to the Happy to Help award scheme and we anticipate 4860

the formal launch will take place in September 2013. This will focus quite heavily on the

introduction of reasonable adjustments, so often mentioned today.

In addition, in order to see maximum support for the proposals, we plan to take details to a

newly constituted multi-agency forum. Plans for the inaugural meeting are underway, and again

we will anticipate this taking place later this year. 4865

I trust that Hon. Members will conclude that my Department has been and is being proactive in

its responsibilities for progressing the phased implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act,

and that there will be a continued close interest in following that further progress as it unfolds over

the coming months.

As stated in the proposed amendment, should it be accepted, I look forward to reporting a 4870

timetable detailing the next steps to the Hon. Court by the end of this year. The choice, then, is

between two routes: (1) an arbitrary date for bringing into force the Disability Discrimination Act;

and (2) a pragmatic and proactive programme to bring the Act into force progressively, with an

opportunity for this Hon. Court to scrutinise that progress at the end of this year and the further

timetable for its ongoing implementation. 4875

Madam President, I commend the second route to this Hon. Court and beg to move the

amendment in my name:

To leave out all the words after ‘That Tynwald’ and insert ‘acknowledges the work undertaken

to date on the phased implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act; and is of the

opinion that this phased approach should continue and that the Department should publish by

the end of 2013 a timetable detailing next steps for the implementation of the Act.’


Mr Ronan: Thank you, Madam President. 4880

I beg to second.

The President: The Lord Bishop.

The Lord Bishop: Madam President, I was quite surprised recently when I discovered that the 4885

Disability Discrimination Act had been granted Royal Assent in 2006, but seven years on had not

been implemented. But we can now look forward to serious implementation. I hope this Court will

support the amendment and will support the motion.

Clause 27 of the Act itself had said: 4890


_________________________________________________________________

1235 T130

‘This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Department may by order

appoint and different days may be so appointed for different provisions and different purposes.’

– the reference to phased implementation –

‘Consultations which are required by any provision of this Act to be held by the Department may be held by it before

the coming into force of that provision.’

We have heard the tale of the way in which various people over the years, in Government and

out, have promised the implementation of the Act, and there is no point in going over those things,

but reading this story reminds me of Alice in Wonderland:

‘“Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice… “Oh my ears and whiskers, [said the White Rabbit] how late it’s getting!”’

By not committing ourselves to a deadline, we have opened ourselves to the critique that

whatever costs us has to wait. It is not true, of course, and there is no point in going over the 4895

delays in implementation – after all, this is the Easter season, when Christians affirm that there is

always hope and that impossibilities can happen.

So, Madam President, in the Act, providers of services are only required to do what is

reasonable and, where necessary, to make reasonable adjustments. Of course, one of the factors

accepted by everyone in determining what is reasonable is the availability of financial resources; 4900

but the availability of financial resources is only one factor alongside others – factors such as need,

factors such as willingness, factors such as our common humanity. Those and others are just as

important as determining factors in the implementation of an Act like the Disability

Discrimination Act. Cost alone is not good enough reason for a delay in implementing the Act on

the Island. 4905

What does the word ‘reasonable’ mean – endowed with reason; requiring the use of reason; not

absurd or ridiculous; not asking for too much; not excessive; appropriate to the circumstances or

the purpose; fair?

So, for instance, a customer in a restaurant has some residual sight, but cannot read the specials

board, so the boss explains to his staff that they must be ready to read out what is on the board – it 4910

costs nothing but a short period of training for the staff; or, when printing the menus to put on the

tables, a few extra copies are printed in a larger font size – cost, pence.

Most of us here – in fact, probably all of us here – have got some kind of disability. We like to

imagine that it is everyone else who has got the problem, but life, of course, teaches us the truth.

We can bluff our way out of the disability of not listening to other people, but if you are 4915

profoundly deaf you cannot do that. We can bluff our way out of not reading our papers, but if you

have no have no sight, you cannot do that, and you can easily feel trapped. So, by bringing

forward a definite deadline for the implementation – admittedly, a phased implementation, which

is what it should be – of this Act, this Court can release people who otherwise would be trapped.

That is why we need the courage to go ahead and implement this Act and set a timetable for it 4920

to be done. This is about people, and if we lose sight of that, then all we say about economic

policy and all we say about flourishing is vacuous – because it is not really about protecting ‘the

vulnerable’, that amorphous body of the faceless and the unnamed; it is about protecting

vulnerable people, who are human beings with names and faces.

Madam President, we need to get on with it and set ourselves this deadline. Seven years is just 4925

simply too long to wait. I appeal to the Members of the Court to vote for the amendment, because

it sets us a timetable. It is bound to be phased implementation, but the commitment to reporting

gives this Court the clear opportunity to monitor the implementation.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Braidwood. 4930


Speaking as a Member of this Hon. Court and also as Chairman of the Tynwald Advisory

Council for Disabilities – which, may I remind Hon. Members, is a statutory body established

under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1981 as amended to advise Government 4935

Departments and other statutory bodies on matters relating to those living with disabilities or

chronic illness – Madam President, the committee, which consists of Mr Corkish as the vice-

chairman and three lay members, were becoming increasingly concerned at the slow progress

being made to ensure that disabled people are given full protection in Manx law against

discrimination in the workplace and our wider community. 4940


_________________________________________________________________

1236 T130

In that respect, I wrote to the Chief Secretary, on 15th October last year, for an update on the

progress of the equality Bill, which we understood was being drafted by the Department of

Economic Development in conjunction with the Chief Secretary’s Office, but also the progress

with the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 2006, which we believe the decision

of the Council of Ministers, regarding the report by Sight and Sound Technology on the impact of 4945

its implementation…

So, as we have already heard from the Minister for the Department of Social Care, and also in

the Answer to a Question, on I think it was 1st November, by the Chief Minister on this subject…

and also the Minister has mentioned that they have received the report from Sight and Sound

Technology. 4950

The committee, in actual fact, met Sight and Sound Technology well over a year ago, and their

intention, really, was for the committee – or the Tynwald Advisory Council for Disabilities – to

act as a conduit for reasonableness, because they knew that we had gone on many visits, private

and public, giving advice to hotels, even going along to the prison to see, because of course there

are people in there who suffer from disabilities, and we offered our advice on what would be 4955

reasonable for implementation.

I think it has been touched on by the Hon. Member for South Douglas, Mrs Beecroft, and also

at lunchtime in the excellent presentation on ‘A Life Less Equal’, which I think Members,

particularly the Bishop, have mentioned, and also Mrs Beecroft, which was by Deafway and the

Manx Deaf Society, where they were hoping that the Disability Discrimination Act would be 4960

implemented as soon as possible so at least those people who have to suffer a disability of

deafness have equal rights with those who do not suffer.

Madam President, I will support the amendment in the name of the Minister. I do believe that it

has been a long time. As the Bishop has said and Mrs Beecroft, it is nearly seven years since it was

brought in, and the only section of this Bill which has been implemented by Appointed Day Order 4965

was the change of name from the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Committee to the

Tynwald Advisory Council for Disabilities, and that is a few years ago, and I do believe we have

to move on this Act as soon as possible.

Mr Corkish and another Member: Hear, hear. 4970

The President: The mover to reply.

Sorry, the Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, my concern is that what we have got here is a very woolly 4975

amendment, and the fact that we keep on getting promises made and promises broken, as far as

this is concerned.

The Chief Minister: No, you don’t.

4980

Mr Karran: I think the point is… Well, we do, and I think we do in the past. We have seen

this happen time and time again over the last six years, like the Bishop so eloquently said in this

Court – it might be a surprise for him, but it certainly is not a surprise for me as far as social

legislation is concerned.

I think the concern is… If the mover is happy with this amendment, then obviously one will 4985

support it, but I believe that unfortunately this is yet a… no real, clear definition as far as getting in

the legislation.

Yes, there are shortfalls with the legislation, I can understand that, but a bird in the hand is

better than a bird in the bush, and the point is that my concern is we will find ourselves in a

situation where there will be no money, yet again, for implementation for these things. 4990

The fact that we have got to remember is, too, we all understand that we have got to make

financial priorities. We said in the previous Items about making financial priorities. If we need

money for the Disability Discrimination Act, I would suggest, even if you are left or right, the fact

is you are far better actually charging people dental charges so that you have got the money for the

implementation, if their household income is more likely in the region of about £80,000 to 4995

£100,000 a year. You would be far better not giving them that.

But the fact of the matter is what I am concerned about is how do we not know that, at the end

of the day, we come to the end of the year and we have another woolly wish list as far as the issue

is concerned?

I am not surprised by the Member of Council, as far as being Chairman of the Tynwald 5000

disabilities committee. I really do think that needs to be made more independent of Tynwald and


_________________________________________________________________

1237 T130

have real representation from the disabled, so that we actually get them being more like a trade

union, actually fighting the cause more on the basis of what this section of the community is

concerned about.

Obviously, what concerns me, as a person who has raised the issue on several occasions, is we 5005

get these woolly amendments, and what happens is we end up getting nothing as far as this section

of the community is concerned. (Interjections)

I hope we will see some movement as far as the Minister for Social Care is concerned, but my

concern is that it seems very woolly. There is nothing to tie you down. You could come back and

you could say your timetable of implementation could be the year 2026, as far as getting the full 5010

implementation in. That is what worries me about the amendment: it really does not give the

commitment. And whilst the Lord Bishop is a person who looks on the good side, as far as in this

Hon. Court is concerned I have to look on the realistic style as far as the track record when we see

this sort of legislation.

Obviously, Hon. Members will have to make their decision, but I feel that, really, this 5015

amendment is very woolly, and I feel that my concern will be at the end of the year we will be told

we cannot afford to do this and we will be another 10 years waiting for something.

At the end of the year, we will see who is right with the block vote. Keep the pressure on.

The President: The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk. 5020

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Madam President; I will be short.

I do support my Onchan colleague here, and it may shock people on that. We have been

waiting for this for a little while, the Bishop was quite right, we have had something, and I

welcome the opportunity from the Member for South Douglas raising this particular issue. 5025

I would have liked to have seen Government Departments coming forward to us, and they

could have done it any time, all Departments, saying to us where they are, what they are going to

do, and then implementation date. It did not need a motion put down, but it has prompted you to

do something. I, like some others, I think, in this Court, have been waiting far too long for this to

take place. 5030

I would ask the Minister, if we are so happy to support the amendment here before us, I

wonder whether he would give us a copy of the Sight and Sound report, give us some information,

tell us what is happening even in your own Department.

I would like to know too, from other Government Departments, if there are still grants

available from some Department – either it is Social Care or the Department of Infrastructure – 5035

under the local authority guides, which use to have it in all the time.

Mr Houghton: Local authorities!

Mr Quirk: But they were the ones who did things, Mr Houghton. They were the ones who put 5040

things together. They made issues happen, and we have not in this Court, and the whole issue –

The President: Speak through the chair, sir, instead of stabbing across the Court.

Mr Corkish: Hear, hear. 5045

Mr Quirk: – is here today, Madam President. I am just looking him in the eye, so he knows

what I am talking about. (Interjection) He is.

I will not support the amendment because I have reservations as well, and the reservations are

it does not give me enough concrete there to say things are going to happen – 5050

Mr Downie: You want six foot on top.

Mr Quirk: – and that is why I will be thinking of supporting the original motion.

5055

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

Mr Butt: Thank you, Madam President.

I will be very brief. I would like some clarification from the mover of the motion. I fully

support her motion and her intent behind it, and she is right that this matter is long overdue. Where 5060

I saw the amendment come through, I really thought this may be another attempt to put it back in

the long grass again.


_________________________________________________________________

1238 T130

Mr Robertshaw: No, it is not.

5065

Mr Butt: But it depends what the mover means by her motion. Is she looking for a timetable

for the implementation of the Act by June, or the timetable by June – because you can read it

either way: if it is actually a timetable to implement the Act by June, that is not reasonable and the

amendment is reasonable (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.); if it is a timetable to just publish a plan, I

really cannot see a reason why the Department could not perhaps publish a plan in June and the 5070

amendment may not be necessary.

I would like her to respond and clarify that in her summing up. Thank you.


5075


I can remember also the situation maybe 10 years ago and where there was the feeling there

was a lack of any purpose or progress and the frustrations of some Members. I remember

particularly George Waft felt that he was knocking his head against a brick wall.

I believe things have changed now. I think the view has changed, generally. I think it was a 5080

very timely presentation today, and whilst that presentation was linked to the difficulties of deaf

people, I think it brought into focus that this applies to the problems that are encountered by all

people with disabilities.

So I believe that, within this Court today, whilst we have some differences of opinion, there is

generally a feeling of goodwill (Mr Corkish: Hear, hear.) and a recognition of the need to 5085

encompass and include all people with disabilities into our society, making us one society. (Two

Members: Hear, hear.)

As far as the amendment is concerned, I think Minister Robertshaw has been quite specific in

his amendment and in his commitment, and I hope Members will accept that – that he does intend,

with his commitment, that the Department will quickly advance with its proposals to make sure 5090

that the Act is implemented as soon and as quickly as is possible. So I would hope that Members

would recognise that and support the amendment.

The President: The Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

5095


I just want to put on record there is no problem with the motion; it is good. No problem with

the amendment, because I am impressed with that – it has given is now, finally, a date that we can

work to, and something I myself have been calling for, for many a year, as it happens.

But what I would like to say is whilst conducting the Planning Committee from 2003 area, 5100

there has to be some acknowledgement given to the Departments that, on any particular occasion

when embarking on new projects, would factor in arrangements for disabled access and so on as a

modern criteria thing to do at that time in recognition of what was happening in the UK anyway.

We also invited private contractors to do the same; many do in that too. So there have been a lot of

achievements in the background going on that have not been recognised here and I think that just 5105

needs to go on the record – that there has been a lot of hard work going on, just quietly, people

recognising criteria changing and trying their best.

One other point I would like to say on this matter: there has been a lot of unfounded fear, I

would say, Eaghtyrane, on the point of introducing the Act, where people have been frightened

about cost implications, but at the end of the day – it has been pointed out here tonight, time and 5110

time again – sensible, reasonableness, (Mr Corkish: Reasonable.) phased. That has always been

the way I have seen it and it has always been the way that we put things through, certainly on the

Planning Committee and other sections I have worked on, Eaghtyrane.

So, supporting Mr Robertshaw’s amendment – happy with that, Eaghtyrane. Gura mie eu.

5115


Mr Ronan: Thank you, Madam President.

I was not, obviously, in this Court when the debates were going on in 2005 and –

5120

The President: I am sorry, Hon. Member, are you speaking to the main motion?

Mr Ronan: Yes.


_________________________________________________________________

1239 T130

The President: Because you have spoken to – 5125

Mr Ronan: Yes, to the main motion.

The President: But you did not reserve… You did not speak to the amendment. You had your

opportunity then, so I – 5130

Mr Ronan: Oh, do I have to sit down? Apologies.

Mr Henderson: Vote! 5135

The President: If no-one else wishes to speak, the mover to reply.


I am a bit torn, and I certainly was when I got the amendment because I thought, ‘Well, it is

only another six months that we are going to wait, and then we will be given the timetable. We 5140

have waited six-and-a-half years; let’s give the Department the benefit of the doubt and give them

another six months.’ (A Member: Hear, hear.) But – and there is always a ‘but’ – I am not quite

sure why they could not have given us this timetable by June.

If I could, at the same time, address Mr Butt’s question of what my motion actually meant, it

was asking Tynwald to approve so that a timetable had to be produced by June. That is all it was: a 5145

timetable of all the different steps and when it was going to completely be enforceable, so

everybody had a clear timescale from beginning to end.

Now, when I first looked at the Minister’s amendment, as I said, I thought, ‘Yes, I can wait

another six months, it is no big deal, we will get a full plan’; but it actually does not say that.

When you read it more carefully, it says at the end: 5150

‘the Department should publish by the end of 2013 a timetable detailing next steps for the implementation of the Act.’

So it is not a timetable (A Member: Yes, it is.) for when we are going to get to the end of this;

it is only a timetable for the next steps. Had the amendment been more full, of giving a complete

timetable, I would have been quite happy to support the amendment, but I do feel that it is leaving

a little bit too much wriggle room when all we are doing is agreeing to the next steps. As I say, had

it been a full timetable, I would have given the Minister that bit of leeway and said, ‘Yes, okay, we 5155

will wait six months,’ and happily support his amendment. But, when you read it – and I read it

three or four times while different people were speaking to make sure that I knew what I was

going to support – I am actually not as happy with it as I was when I first read it.

I would like to thank everybody who has spoken, because it is an important issue.

I think the Bishop made some very good points about those little things that we can all be 5160

doing, and I think it is really this change in attitude that is as crucial as anything else, and I think

for Government to have to publish a timetable that is giving the people the full support of

Government – knowing when there is going to be an end to this, knowing when they are going to

be fully included in our society – will hopefully bring about this change of attitude that some

people are a bit reluctant to adopt. 5165

I think there are an awful lot of people in the community... they do not need legislation to be

told these things. They will go out of their way to help anybody who has got any sort of disability,

but there are others who, shall we say, need the encouragement to change attitudes and to be a bit

more reasonable with people.

I thank Mr Quirk for his support in this matter, and of course I thank my colleague from 5170

Onchan.

I know everybody has the best interests of the disabled at heard, but I do think that the

amendment is just going to give the Department a bit too much wriggle room. I do not see why

they cannot give us the broad brush strokes of a timetable by June. It cannot be that difficult

(Several Members: Hear, hear.) to put it down on paper so we have got something. 5175

It is with reluctance that I cannot support the amendment because, as I say, when I first read it I

thought, ‘Yes, I will get up and say, “I will put up with that amendment, but I will hold you to

account – by giving you my approval, I will be watching you.”’ But the amendment actually does

not give us what we need. It is only saying the ‘next steps’ are going to be in the timetable; it is not

giving us the full thing. 5180

So I would urge Members to think about… to read the amendment again, just that little bit

more carefully, before you commit to supporting it.

Thank you, Madam President. I beg to move.


_________________________________________________________________

1240 T130

The President: Hon. Members, the motion before the Court is set out at Item 24. To that, we 5185

have an amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw. I will put

to you the amendment first. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.


In the Keys – Ayes 17, Noes 5 FOR Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Hall Mr Karran Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell


In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 1 FOR Mr Corkish Mr Wild Mr Crowe Mr Downie The Lord Bishop Mr Turner Mr Braidwood Mr Coleman

AGAINST Mr Butt

The President: In the Council, 8 for and 1 against. The amendment therefore carries.

I now put to you the motion as amended as the substantive motion. Those in favour, please say 5190

aye; against, no. The ayes have it.


In the Keys – Ayes 21, Noes 1 FOR Mr Hall Mr Karran Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

AGAINST Mr Quirk


_________________________________________________________________

1241 T130




AGAINST None

The President: In the Council, 9 for and none against. The motion therefore carries.

Hon. Members, that concludes our business for today. The Council will now withdraw and

leave the House of Keys to transact such business as Mr Speaker may place before it. 5195

The Council withdrew.

House of Keys

The Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will now stand adjourned until our next sitting, next

Tuesday, 23rd April at 10.00 a.m. in our own Chamber.

The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.